God is great! God is Good!
oftentimes what I use what I read here in blog land to determine what direction my personal devotions should take. what follows is in response to something I read this evening.
God is Holy! God is the Great I Am, Holy, Holy, Holy - no question.
God is Sovereign! Great and Powerful - The ruler over everything. King of Kings and LORD of Lords! Creator of everything, worshiped by all of creation! - no argument.
God is Omnipresent! Everywhere!
God is Omniscient! He sees everything under the sun (job 28:24) He counts the stars and names each one…there is no limit to what He knows. (Psalm 147:45) No limit. He knows what will be, what should be, what could be…what might be. Every possibility and every individual’s true potential.
God is Omnipotent. And Job said “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, I talked of things too wonderful for me to know.” But God knows!
God is Eternal, Infinite, Perfect! He is a faithful God who does no wrong!
God chose to identify Himself, as Father, Friend, Comforter as well as Merciful Judge and Savior/Redeemer.
One of my new blog friends just posted a great word study on Sin. This brings to question, are we responsible for the sins we commit? The whole question of why there is evil in the world - did God create it, plan it? And of course my favorite topic - Free Will vs. the Sovereignty of God. Only I don’t see Free Will and the Sovereignty of God in opposition with each other. Our King knows what can be, what should be, and what might be. He loves His creatures, His children and does everything to help them reach the goal He has set for them. But ultimately the choice is ours. A perfect God did not create evil. A God, in whom there is no darkness, did not will into existence a world of darkness and despair.
One more word - pantheism - because it has become a hot topic lately on other blogs which take great offense with the emergent, postmodern, nontraditional churches.
I do not worship trees, but I do believe that trees worship their creator.
I do not worship or search the stars for secrets or answers but I do believe that God has named the stars and that they sing for Him.
I do not think that animals have souls that can be saved or lost, but I do believe that the birds of the air, the beasts in the fields, the creatures in the sea are all looking forward to the time that Jesus returns and renews creation, restores it to its prefall state.
I believe that when we were created we were given the job to care for and be wise stewards of the planet that God created to be our home, and that deliberately doing something to harm or waste any part of creation is a sin against the Creator.
Time to watch TV, turn off my brain, cuddle up with my husband…did I tell you that it snowed in Shiprock today. It was so incredibly beautiful!
56 comments:
I never expected this high quality of discourse when I joined the blogosphere. I am very impressed with the kinds of comments and thoughts that I have gotten on my most recent post. You and the folks who are commenting on your blog are coming at these issues from slightly different perspective than me, and each of you are very well thought out.
Your question regarding Free Will and Sovereignty is HUGE. My understanding goes along these lines. God is God. And God is absolutely Sovereign. But God wants those of us who call him "Abba" Father to do so willingly. Is it love for the Father if I am somehow programmed to act in a predetermined fashion?
Boy, you can elevate and expand into some pretty deep theological water pretty quickly when you start "noodling" on these questions. I am cuurently reading a book and it says that says "theology is an unavoidable task from which no one, clergy or lay, is exempt." The write goes on to say, "the task of theology is to be the business of the whole church, not simply a few scholars who are kept safely insulated from the life of the real world." ["Grace, Faith and Holiness" by H. Ray Dunning]
~Kevin
Thanks, I enjoyed this one. I will be back to read more. Just reading the first part was an entry into worship.
Praise the Lord! Great and inspirataional! I totally agree with your words here. Now I want to go out and reach my hands to God along side some trees! :)
Great post! I whole-heartedly agree with you that the free-will of man is not contradictory to the sovereignty of God. Very simply, a sovereign God created man as a free moral agent. The greatest love is love by choice, and that is how God wants us to love Him.
I like your comment about creatures worshiping their Creator.
A few weeks ago Slice had a post about the prayer by St. Francis where he says just that. Whoever posted it was ignorant of the fact that St. Francis was not a pantheist which is exactly what he was accused of being.
Your comments are exactly correct!
Gordon, you stated it so clearly...absolutely! Bridget, how nice of you to visit! To the rest of you, blessings on this LORD's day.
But according to the Scriptures nman is immoral, therefore what kind of free choices will he make?
God has complete free will i.e. He can will what He wills, and He can enact what He wills. According to Romans 7, man cannot do any such thing. So I will say again for the hundredth time, choose away all you want. Freedom of choice does not mean we will make the correct one, even if we "will" to do so.
so if we are incapable of making the correct choice on our own, how can we be held responsible for the choices we make?
If we are not responsible for the wrong choices we make since we were created unable to choose righteously, why the cross?
would I punish a child born without legs because he could not run?
Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit.
All mankind was in Adam when he did so, so all mankind is fallen. If this is not true, then how could our being in the second Adam
(Jesus) that Paul describes, save us? The second Adam chose the tree of life, i.e. the cross, Therefore if we are in Him, then we make that choice also. Now if we had no choice about our being placed in the first Adam, and thereby suffering the consequences if his sin, then how could it follow that we have a choice about being placed in Christ. The fact of the matter is, all of creation is placed in Christ and judged at the cross. So it is not a question of "choosing", it is a matter of believing and receiving. The work is already done. Adam chose in the garden, Jesus chose at Calvary. I believe it by faith, and I receive the free gift of salvation.
The baby isn't born without legs because all his ancestors were born without legs. All of our ancestors, whoever we are, were born in sin. going all the way back to Adam.
Also the baby's's ancestors did not choose to become legless. Adam chose to sin.
Adam was told to make the correct choice, and he did not do it.
The baby did not make a choice to be born with or without legs.Neither did his forefathers.
Freedom to choose is not "free will" it is an act of our volition, but as I said, Romans 7 tells us that we cannot do what we would like.
This is the crux of the problem. There are many who are unregenerate, that are making good, and bad choices everyday. So are they saved one day, and then unsaved the next? This is the major flaw of extreme arminianism.
This is why we cannot be saved by our own works.
As Paul asked, what if God in desiring to show His mercy, created some to be vessels of wrath?
So then you may ask who can resist His will? (This is essentially what your first question is asking.)
The implied answer is no one; so who are you oh man?
I see no way that salvation can even work if any part of it is left up to us.
You would have to discard huge portions of Scripture to defend the "free will" argument.
This is why the say the sinners prayer/make a decision for Christ method of evangelizing is bogus.
Chris - what is your alternative?
Sometimes my husband, pastor art is hard to understand...go figure, him being a dyslexic theologian and all.
But he is well read, well educated, and takes his "theology" very seriously. He is a man of intergrity, and with him, what you see is what you get. What you see, is a mountain of a man, long hair, full, bushy beard, and two earings, a turquios cross, and a pearl (the pearl of great price). He is Russian, Jewish, Spanish and Navajo, with the Russian being dominant, and the Navajo being hidden. Our family has been in crisis for the past four years or so, and our faith has been shaken, especially when people, strong christians, pastors with whom we had made a covenant of trust and support walked away when we needed them most. The question of personal predestination and divine election has been seriously considered by both of us over the past year or so, with the tormenting question ... If God has a chosen elect who will be saved, and God never foresakes His elect, and we have been forsaken, then are we truly saved? I am willing to accept the fact that the mess we are in is a result of sin. That we have made sinful choices at times, and we suffer the consequences. That we live in a fallen world where the sinful, willfullness of others can cause turmoil. I am not willing to accept that the mess we are in is part of some perfect plan. I know that God can work all things out for the good if we let Him. I know that He is faithful to forgive and restore. I know the best way to live, is to turn our will over to His will. But I can not, will not believe in a God that preplans doom and distruction, that preplans abuse and violence. That allows babies to be born, that He knows will spend eternity in a devils hell. If we are not free to choose, if the choice was preknown and thereby predestined...If we are not able to choose to turn our lives over to Jesus and most of the people in the world are born for damnation...then what is the point?
From the pulpit of the Church where Chris leads worship, I have heard numerous calls to "make a decision to follow Jesus". I would never call the pastor of that Church "Bogus".
I want to say so much more, but it would be too an emotional a response. I will go back to Gordon's statement: the free-will of man is not contradictory to the sovereignty of God. Very simply, a sovereign God created man as a free moral agent. The greatest love is love by choice, and that is how God wants us to love Him.
Never heard our pastor tell anyone to just say a prayer, or just make a decision. Neither make you anymore of a convert than sitting in a pew. Actually I never heard numerous calls such as this, from the pulpit in my four and a half years at the church.
"Our family has been in crisis for the past four years or so, and our faith has been shaken, especially when people, strong christians, pastors with whom we had made a covenant of trust and support walked away when we needed them most."
What has this to do with the question at hand? Easy to spin something on your own blog.
I prefer to keep my mouth shut about the actual facts.
We are in the mess we are in because of our choices, the majority of which must be bad which can be evidenced by the mess. God never planned for us to be in a mess, but He does have a plan that will come to fruit through the mess, especially since he foreknew the mess.
Grey Owl, alternative to what?
"This is why the say the sinners prayer/make a decision for Christ method of evangelizing is bogus."
Who used the term "just make a decision"? Yet through out Scripture God urges us, commands us, compells us to make choices, decisions.
As far as the personal crisis...I am sorry if it sounded that the Church Chris attends is in any way at fault. It wasn't. I am not trying to spin anything. This has nothing to do with the question at hand, except in that the crisis is what lead us to doubt and question. And the crisis is what has caused us to be emotional about being lumped in with heretical, new age, pawns of satan.
The Bibl eis written for the people of God. They are required to make the choices.
"heretical, new age, pawns of satan." ???????
More than a bit of overreaction?
I do not remember hearing these terms thrown around here or anywhere else.
Chris -
'heretical, new age, pawns of satan.' ???????
More than a bit of overreaction?
I do not remember hearing these terms thrown around here or anywhere else."
All of these have been said and or implied about her while I have been here by commentors including yourself. You stand on your theoretical righteousness and spew hateful words towards MaryEllen and several of the other people out here with no regard to the damage you are doing, and apparently no understanding of the obvious reaction that will come from them.
You are certainly not the one to stand up hear and preach or lead. You fail in the basic necessity of leadership, particularly within a church or religious setting: You can't keep your story straight. You state in several places that we are in capable of making decisions, and then in other places in the same comment refer to the choices that are made by us. Rather than defend this fact when questioned, you turn instead on MaryEllen and say she is "spinning things" on her own blog. Isn't this what we do on blogs? Point out how we see it? You say she lies then state you won't give details of how. You think this makes you look respectable? No, it makes you an asshole. (My apologies, MaryEllen, I honestly can't think of another appropriate word.) The respectable thing to do would be to either not accuse her, or to back up what you were talking about. Preferably the former since it is none of our business anyway.
Your theology in every example now has been fractured when you attempted to use it as a weapon against MaryEllen. Perhaps you should take a hint from this. The scriptures weren't made to attack people, and they become brittle when you attempt to use them to do so. From miles away, just from your written word, I can see you have a lot of growth and understanding to achieve. Why don't you look to that and back off with the attack?
Wanderer
It must be hard to try and fit into a "conversation" when you have no concept of the subject matter.
I really don't care what you think about me and/or the church that I serve at. You have no knowledge of the facts or what I referred to in my comment about "spin". Frankly iot is none of your affair. Please, butt out. As for your "colorful" commentary I see that the body of Christ is not the only place where the immature are a problem to the rest of the fellowship.
One other salient point. I am always amazed at how well folks stay on topic. I have yet to see anyone other than Grey Owl address the argument I raised a few comments back.
I do not remember ever calling anyone names here. Unfortunately in this liberal-impaired world, if you voice disagreement, well that is just plain hateful. However when the liberals voice disagreement, well that is simply because they happen to be right. Thus they show their superior attitude of tolerance. Spare me all the revisionist history and theology. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Considering his age and back ground, I would not refer to Wanderer as immature - a bit young, but wise for his age.
No, Chris never called me any names, I never said he did. Did any of his comments infer that I was a heretic? Or that I was working for the enemy?
Yeah, if we look at these things logically.
If people who hold a certin belief are heretics, and I hold that same belief, than logically I am a heretic. If people who believe a certin way are doing the work of the enemy, and I believe that way, then logically I am doing the work of the enemy. However these comments were never directed towards me personally.
I used to attend the church where chris leads worship. I used to spend hours upon hours with wanderer's wife and in-laws. There are personal connections there.
I have nothing against Chris's church. I have nothing against the senior pastor there. The preaching is Biblical and the fellowship was sweet. I do not believe that we have done any damage by deciding to stop attending, except perhaps to ourselves. If something bad is being said about why we left, it is not being said by us, not on this blog, not anywhere.
this is my blog, and if i choose to confess something to my readers, or express something personal, than that is my option.
Jason and Chris, who said we hated you? And just because people disagree with you doesn't make you right.
My JW sister-in-law, upon hearing a teaching about how JW's were a cult, and their religion was false, quoted the verse Jason was referring to...see, the world hates us, just like the Bible said it would...so we must be right!
Nothing bad is being said about anything or anyone at all. In fact when I am asked, I steer the questioner onto other things.
It is your option to post anything you wish of course.
However there things ommitted which speak louder than what was said.
For example;
"I have nothing against Chris's church. I have nothing against the senior pastor there. The preaching is Biblical and the fellowship was sweet."
So since I am not mentioned, or the worship, both must be just awful,i.e. you must have plenty against me. Our poor church must have suffered greatly these last four years or so, with me leading the worship.
Also I noticed nothing said about Wanderer's crude reference to me, so you must agree with that also.
Since you choose to present these issues here, then I believe that it is fair that I respond to them.
Jason, as always, I appreciate the support.
Chris - just wanted to know how you evangelize, if not ask people to pray for forgiveness and for Jesus to be Lord. And I don't think that everyone here is saying, "if you voice disagreement, well that is just plain hateful" - I disagree with wanderer and maryellen on several points, and we still seem to get along fine. Why do you think that is?
Jason - Maryellen does have a point; what makes you different from the JW's? Your answer seems to be 'because I'm right', but that's circular reasoning. Personally, I think if anyone has a right to feel persecuted here it's wanderer.
Everyone - it's getting a little heated. Let's take some time, get our thoughts together, and let cooler heads prevail. WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE.
Chris you said:"More than a bit of overreaction?
I think your last comment was a bit of an overreation.
"...or whine that I have somehow hurt their feelings, or insulted them."
that is a quote from your new blog, about the people and kinds of comments you don't want there.
considering the last face to face conversation we had, and how I confessed to you how your comments had indeed hurt my feelings...
I made a pact with myself not to ever comment there
but if I want to whine here, I will.
As far as Wanderer's crude comment...it's not a term I would ordinarliy use - and I would not apply it to Chris...but since he already aplozised, I won't scold him for his choice of words.
and thank you Grey Owl for being the voice of Sanity. notice the name of this post? notice the first few comments? how did the comments here get so heated?
I'll answer that, but can you give me a quick definition of Dogmatic first? I want to make sure I know what I'm getting myself into.
Well, technically, that's two definitions.
The second one is simple; I'll die for whatever I believe to be true. If someone put a gun to my head and said, "I'll kill you unless you deny (the virgin birth, absolute truth, accesibilism, the sky is blue, beer is good) I'd wind up with a bullet in the brain, because to deny anything that is true would make me a pretty false person.
As for the first definition - the lines surrounding the "believer" camp, I have to go back to the Bible. It looks like you're asking for the "bare minimum," correct? Let's look at Luke 23 and the thieves (in greek, the "evildoers") on the crosses.
'One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."'
Hmm. How interesting... here we have two people the Bible labels as criminals/sinners, both with different reactions and responses. The first calls Jesus "the Christ" and asks to be saved. The second calls him by his name and does the same. What is the difference between the two?
The first fellow demands to be saved. Almost incredulous at Jesus' inaction (Are you not the Christ?), he acts out of fear and entitlement. The second makes not demands, just acknowledges his state without excuse, then asks for Jesus to remember him when he comes into his Kingdom.
The second criminal does 2 things differently; he confesses his sinful state (not all of his sins, just his state... interesting as well...) and asks Jesus not to save him from their concequences, just to remember him (the reference to Jesus's Kingdom an acknowledgement that he knew Christ was the messiah, at least in a rudimentary way). He also asks with humility, very different from his friend.
So if we're looking for the bare minimum, I'd have to say that acknowledgement of our fallen state, belief in Christ as Lord (although obviously complete understanding isn't necessary), and asking to be saved. That's the gospel.
Grey Owl, good answer!
Thanks, m.e. I mean, that still doesn't adress the issue of the unevangelized, but that's a whole other bag of potatoes. ONe at a time.
I'm not aware of any label by humans - JW included - that's too powerful for God's graces, Jason, and I'm a little surprised you'd suggest such a thing. I'm not aware of all of the nuances of Jehovah's Witness theology, perhaps you'd care to enlighten us?
If believing improper doctrine prevents one from being a believer, then that means Simon Peter wasn't a "true believer" until Paul corrected him about circumcision in the early church. Which in turn means that he wasn't saved until then. Assuming that he didn't have anything wrong after that, of course...
As far as those practising sin goes, I'll wait for your response to the above before we go there.
My litnus test has always been, not do
you call Jesus LORD, but who do you say that He is. With that as the standard, I can believe that Catholics, are "saved", but with JW's (which I'm picking on because I know several personally) they believe that Jesus is infact the Arch Angel Michael, so when they call upon the name of Jesus, they aren't calling on the True Jesus.
Well, that covers the JW doctrine of Christ - if they don't believe that he is really Christ, then that leaves them out of what I was saying.
"Keep in mind that the believers during the apostolic age did not have the complete revealed word of God that we currently have" - err, ok... where are you getting that from? What about "through a glass darkly" and all that?
I agree that adding to the gospel is bad, that's what my point about peter was. Even though he was adding to the gospel there, he was obviously still a believer. So Belivers can still have some things wrong. I don't understand where in the bible you're finding the human label of "apostolic age."
The virgin birth is a non-negotiable because it is very clearly stated in scripture and the apostle's creed.
If Jesus were not conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, He would have been just any other man...The divinity of Jesus depends upon the conditions of His birth. I got that fact from my Roman Catholic religious teaching (13 years in parochial schools - graduating with an award for Excellence in Theology). Although I do not agree with the Mariology of the Catholic Church, I do feel that the Protestants tend to ignor just how blessed she was, and how important she is to the story of Christ.
Well seems I missed a few things here. I will answer a couple of questions that were put to me. The tone of the comments changed when Wanderer put up his commment to me, which had nothing to do with anything I previously posted. I do think he lurks around waiting to pounce. Sad.
As for my blog and the "whining" remark. I am just sick and tired of seeing my blogs hijacked, and straying off topic.
The interesting thing about blogging is you really don't know a thing about those who visit and comment, or even the blog author. It could all be a false presentation of who that person is. Therefore I blog with the thought that it has nothing to do with personal relationships. All blog posts, when posted are fair game in terms of I can disagree with anything that I disagree with. The blog is not a forum for church discipline matters or anything of that nature.
So if you wish to whine then do so
accurately.
As for evangelization;
The confession of every sin one has committed is an impossibility, unless you only sin once or twice every few years. Who could remember all of them? We are saved from our fallen/first Adam state.
We sinply confess, by faith, Jesus as Christ/Messiah. According to Peter's confession the Christ IS the Son of the living God. They are one and the same. So He must be acknowledged as Lord, Messiah and Son of Yahweh.
As for the Romanists, whether or not they confess Jesus as such, they still teach Mary worship, and other doctrines, too numerous to list here, that are extremely problematic. I do not hold to the view that we all believe in Jesus so all doctrinal issues are non-essential. Any doctrine that veers from Scripture must be shot down. The Apostles did this, and Jesus did this also. The Pharisees sin was not legalism. Jesus said they should have kept the legalistic points of the Law without neglecting the weightier issues. Therefore the Pharisees are the ones who twisted and neglected Scripture. Something more in tune with the tolerant post-modern liberals of today.
John 5:37-47 and Matthew 23:23
It is our task as members of the Body to guard the people of His pasture (Psalm 95) from fat,lazy, greedy shepherds, (Ezekiel 34) and the wolves that come in with their universalist/apostate doctrines. (Jeremiah 23 and Acts 20:25-35)
The disiples were told to love one another and that would be their defining characteristic. Love is not "let's all get along". Save that for Kofi, Nelson, and Bono and the rest of the one-worlders.
I love my kids so I discipline them, sometimes quite sternly. That is love. God loved Israel, so He sent Babylon to destroy the land and take them away. In this act He saved the remnant and purged the apostasy. That is love.
God so loved us He saved us from the worst enemy of our souls. Not Satan, but ourselves. When Paul said reckon yourself to be dead he meant quite literally so, in the Greek. The word he used is emphatic and implies reckon it to be so, because it is a fact, not a metaphor. He so loved me He put me to death so I could become a new creation. All this is for His glory and name, not so we could realize our potential. He does not exist for us, we exist for Him. That is the Gospel.
Therefore I ask how does tolerating every viewpoint and whining glorify the Lord?
Here is a hot question, one that makes me cringe...
Is believeing in personal predestination and divine election an essential to salvation?
If I believe that all humans are born with a desire to find God, with Pascal's God Shaped Hole...with eternity in their hearts which leads them to seek Truth (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
does that mean that I am not really saved? Are those doctrines essential or non-essential?
"11He has made everything appropriate in its time He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."
NASB
The word used as "eternity" in Ecclesiastes 3 is "owlam". It implies the knowledge, or knowing of everything from beginning to end.
However the passage here is saying that God puts the desire in the hearts of men, and then precludes them from knowing any of it. This actually good evidence of Hos pre-determined plan.
There is no God-shaped hole. This passage does not conradict Romans 3, or Psalms 14 and 53 verses 1-3.
Wondering how the creation got here is not the equivilent of seeking God.
As for the hot question; who said anything, other than grace, alone through faith alone, and the confession of the heart's belief that Jesus is Lord, Christ and Son of God, and was raised from the dead, is essential for salvation?
Professing a knowledge of God's pre-destined plan, and His foreknowing of us, is merely evidence that you are reading and understanding your Bible.
Matthew 16:13-19; Romans 8: 29-34;
Romans 10:8-17;Eph2:8-10
Pastor Art and I once had a wonderful English Professor who claimed that you never really know a person until you have "read" him.
Therefore, I disagree with Chris, I think you get to know a lot about a person from reading what he/she writes unless they are purposely choosing to decieve their readers.
I have never met Wanderer - although I know his wife and inlaws very well. Yet, from reading his writing, I think I know him very well. Anyone who has read what I've written on these pink pages knows me very well.
Last summer I confessed here on this blog that I had developed a problem with gambling...slot machines, thank God that after confessing it, writing about it, I was able to overcome it...After that posting though, I was warned by my pastor to be careful what I posted on blogs because they were so public...I was also told by Chris, that a blog was probably not an appropriate confessional. I have more or less heeded that warning. But still, Chris can claim that his readers don't know the real Chris, I on the other hand admit that my readers know me very well.
one more comment from the author...
Chris said that the "mood" of the comments changed with Wanderer
"The tone of the comments changed when Wanderer put up his commment to me, which had nothing to do with anything I previously posted."
actually I think the tone of the comments changed when Chris began to correct my "theology".
I don't think that Wanderer lurks to attack Chris, I just think he feels he needs to rise to my defense when he perceives I am once again under attack.
"I don't think that Wanderer lurks to attack Chris, I just think he feels he needs to rise to my defense when he perceives I am once again under attack."
That's how it comes across to me, too.
And it's very true that you can get to know someone by reading what they've written. People write to be known.
"Were the apostles walking around with a full copy of the New Testament" - no, but does that make them "inferior" believers? Are they "less Christian" than we are? Don't forget Deut 29:29 - what is revealed is for us, but there are some things that God keeps to himself. Which are which? And what's with this "Apostolic Age" stuff - sounds like human labeling to me. I never read that in the Bible. Sola Scriptura, Jason.
"Not only is is bad, but it will confine you to hell. Let's not forget, Peter repented of his error" - so during the time Peter was believeing that, he was confined to hell? That makes no sense.
"Salvation by grace through faith apart from works is stated in scripture, but you seem to think that is a negotiable" - I do? *Hack hack spit*... sorry, just had some words put in my mouth that didn't belong there. I never said I think it's negotiable. My statements about the two crooks on the crosses and all that is an exploration of "salvation by grace through faith apart from works." What does that mean? I told you what I think it means. Is that somehow unclear to you?
I'm hoping that we can better understand each other after this, Jason, so if anything I'm saying needs to be better stated please let me know.
Chris - I don't lurk and wait for you. If you look through this blog, I post frequently without your encouragement. Still, it is like when I worked security. I was there all the time, did my job, but one guy thought I hated him because I kept taking him into custody. I didn't hate him, he just kept showing up drunk and pounding on windows. Stop pounding on MaryEllen's windows if you think I am picking on you. Either that or suck it up, and after I have hurt your feelings your wife can tell you how wonderful you are as you assure me she does.
MaryEllen - I caught you in a little white lie. (Or a bit of forgetfulness.) We have met. Martha's we were both there at Martha's graduation. Of course that was ages ago and I was a bit of a different person back then.
"Please tell me you are not serious about never hearing the expression apostolic age." - I'm afraid I can't. I really didn't know what you were about with that. Knowing now that you mean "when the apostles were around", I still have to ask, where in the BIble does it say the rules change once all the apostles are dead? Or is it just that they change when the bible took the form it has today? That would be the 4th century, unless I've got my dates wrong.
And as for healing and stuff like that, you'll have to look to our mutual non-cessationist friends about that.
"You for one have said before that one who adheres to RC teachings(faith plus works) is also a true believer. How can this be?" - I believe you are referring to my repeated statements about the nature of the catholics THAT I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH. Most of the Catholics I know do not have a "faith plus works" gospel. Many of the Catholic priests I've met don't either. I have found that, despite what we see in the official doctrines of the catholic church, many in catholocism are ignorant of the "+works" aspect or simply reject it. Many of them would probably be classified as "poor catholics" for that, but I still believe they are true believers.
I have my reservations about the institutional catholic church - I have reservations about most institutional versions of the church. Does that clear things up for you?
Just to clarify - I think that someone who believes in the gospel - grace by faith - can at times and in error add things to it (like Peter did). Then these people should be corrected, as Paul did. I believe that in time God corrects all believers who are in error. I for one have had times where I feel like I have to "earn" my salvation - but God is gracious and reminds me that only he has the power to save me.
"This passage does not conradict Romans 3, or Psalms 14 and 53 verses 1-3."
these verses always come up when I state my belief that people are created with a desire to seek after God...
Most English Translations of Ecc. 3:11 have the word "yet" as the conjunction between the two ideas of having eternity in their hearts, and coming to know God...however it would be equally correct in translating that conjunction as "so that".
here is a quote from my long post
"Here It Is"...
"and so one of the first concepts that I balked at here in the world of blog was that No One Seeks God.
If I were willing to play the game, “I have more verses than you, so I’m right!” I could win this one easily. I have at least 14 and I haven’t gone beyond Psalms yet."
and here are some verses to support my idea that we are created to seek God, commandanded to seek God...
Deut. 4:29
1 Chron. 28:9
2 Chron 11:16
2 Chron 14:4
2 Chron 15;12
Psalm 24:6
Psalm 63:1
Psalm 70:4
Isa. 58:2
Hebrews 11:6
and my all time favorite, which seems to say it all Acts 17:27!
there are more, but I have after school tutoring to get to...blessings
Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere! Thanks for the explanation, Jason, I think I'm starting to finally understand where you're coming from. I believe the same thing; that God expects from us a faith response according to the level of revelation he has given us.
The question becomes now; what has incorrect doctrine to do with believers? Let's take monergism vs synergism (predestination vs free will). We go back and forth and argue, with both sides scoring "points", as it were. How can we be saved if we are in any way responsible for part of salvation? How can we be held responsible for our actions if they were all ordained before we existed? And so on. The best answer was given by John Calvin himself - "Scripture affirms both Free Will and Predestination, and yet does not attempt to resolve the tension between the two." So there is evidence for both, but as we said before understanding this issue is not necessary to be a believer - I think Chris made that point.
If we're boiling everything down to "grace by faith" - which we all seem to agree with - then we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Our agreement on free will or even on gay marriage or whatever else is not necessary. That's why it seems silly to get so fired up and abusive about it. If we're going to "wank" about that (as my britsh friends put it), let's do it in a more relaxed, down-to-earth fashion.
As for someone continuing in sin, well, when we are forgiven for our sins we are fogiven for sins past, present and future. The only way for someone to "lose" their salvation would be if they stopped having faith in christ - which is something that can happen as a result of continuing in sin. Hence the warning for those who continue in sin. Make sense?
As far as someone adding to the gospel goes, I think that it is part of the sin of Pride - that is, we don't want to submit to God and recieve his grace so we try and "earn" our salvation. Unless repented of this would cause someone to lose faith in Christ and begin putting faith in themselves.
That's where mormons and jw's differ most from christianity, and why they don't fall into the christian "camp". And I'm sure that some catholics are there, as well as some baptists and some methodists and some whatever-it-is that you are.
Wanderer
Please don't tell me to suck it up.
I would give that advice to you, and most who post here. I could care less how many insults or stupid comments anyone makes towards me.
Robbymac,
You still owe me an apology.
Maryellen,
Please read what I write, and quit viewing it from your own emotional “lens”
I never said that you don't know me by what I write. I was speaking in general terms. You have no idea who is actually being genuine here, even if they insist that they are genuine. Furthermore they have no knowledge of any of the actual facts concerning recent events.
As for this statement you made:
If I were willing to play the game, “I have more verses than you, so I’m right!” I could win this one easily. I have at least 14 and I haven’t gone beyond Psalms yet."
I am not trying to obtain more verses than you, I am stating what they actually say.
BTW anyone who reads what is there and doesn’t attempt to bring in their own superior scholastics can understand the Bible. God wrote it at a sixth grade level so even the college grads and professors could understand it. Thank God Jesus chose the “dirty dozen”
All your verses seem to contradict one another, and the three that I cited.This means either the Scriptures are wrong, or you are. I will stick with the latter.
If you want me to cite more verses I will gladly do so.
One more thought about this statement:
"Last summer I confessed here on this blog that I had developed a problem with gambling...slot machines, thank God that after confessing it, writing about it, I was able to overcome it...After that posting though, I was warned by my pastor to be careful what I posted on blogs because they were so public...I was also told by Chris, that a blog was probably not an appropriate confessional. I have more or less heeded that warning."
My God was the pastor wrong? The blog is not an appropriate place. It shows that you care more for yourself than you do for your brothers and sisters. That is something I am accused of, and those who actually know me laugh at such a suggestion. You posted all your problems knowing full well that they would be read and discussed. You did this puposefully btw. Are you exempt from correction yourselves? There was no respect shown for any of the pastoral staff. No one was asked to leave, they just picked up their toys and went home.
You have actually not heeded the warning at all, or you would not still be posting such comments as this.
Chris -
"Please don't tell me to suck it up.
I would give that advice to you, and most who post here. I could care less how many insults or stupid comments anyone makes towards me."
Obviously untrue, since you have never been able to not respond to me. Besides, I didn't tell you that you had to "suck it up." I said that was the only alternative to a cessation of attacks on MaryEllen. In other words, I am not going to go away, so stop whining that I defend her. The only way to stop me from doing so is ceasing your attacks.
This is much like a scene I watched in Troy last night. Achilles is enraged that Hector killed his cousin. In his own defense Hector says, "I thought he was you." This might seem like an absurd defense, but it was actually a sensible one given the men involved. If Achilles could have seen past his own rage he would have agreed that Hector's apttempt to kill him would have been acceptable. Why? Because Achilles was a warrior, and quite the exalted one at that. Paracles wasn't. It would have been acceptable for Hector to attack Achilles because they were great warriors, and Achilles could be rated as a match for him.
Now I apply this to this scenario. Your attacks on MaryEllen are unacceptable. They are so because your casual implications of heresy and etc... are literally painful to her, and she is showing signs of difficulty at bearing up under them, and certainly doesn't welcome the battle.
Despite the fact that she has a couple of years on me, we have different backgrounds. Holding onto her faith with purity instead of calculated evangelism lends a certain amount of naivete in regards to battles between self righteous men. I on the other hand have much experience with hostile debates between myself and Christians. Between myself and other Pagans. I have faced off in several witch wars. (By the way, those "silly little things" as you put them would in fact make your hair stand on end if you were in the middle of them.) I have fought for real, in physical battles, one or two of which have left scars and some that I wondered if I would survive while amongst them. I have stared down the barrel of a gun and I have had knives pulled on me. There is nothing left in me that assumes the goodness in another individual, and as such I can't be trapped and destroyed by one I thought I could trust. Like you have tried to do to her.
So yes, "sucking it up" could be one of the options. Another way is quite simple. If Hector takes the field, so will Achilles. I will be her champion until and unless she fires me from the position. Don't wine about my interference, just expect it when you unleash your attacks on MaryEllen. It is just one of those inexorable points in life.
Chris -
"It shows that you care more for yourself than you do for your brothers and sisters."
If one is trying to correct themself, wouldn't the focus be on themself? Would she correct herself by drawing attention to you? Of course not. You accuse her of arrogance when in fact it was just common sense.
It is not selfishness to expose your vulnerabilities to the world. It may be foolish, but it is surely not selfish. Why? Because as soon as she opens herself up, people like you attack her. That is not an example of selfishness unless she is an extreme masochist. Maybe she is, but I haven't seen evidence of it yet.
What you have is the equivalent of discussing a deep personal problem with friends in a crowded coffee shop. It is out there so your friends can help you. The downside is anyone walking by could butt in as well. If she presented this problem to her friends in a non-written fashion would you still accuse her of selfishness? Should she instead keep it inside until it eats a hole in her heart? Please point to the verse that supports that course of action.
You keep trying to prove you are superior to MaryEllen, but you fail. She is better than both of us, in that she is trying to improve herself. You are trying to make yourself look more educated than her, while simultaneously implying that those of us with more documented education are somehow flawed because of it. You try to prove yourself as spiritually evolved over her but you aren't. She says "God help me", and she listens. You just weave words to try and prove you understand how God will help or whether or not he will.
She is better than me as well, because again she looks to her own spiritual path while all I do is offer a sword. So your sword and my sword can meet a thousand times, but I hope she soon realizes you swing for yourself, and that you can't touch her with your self-righteous venom.
"All your verses seem to contradict one another, and the three that I cited.This means either the Scriptures are wrong, or you are."
If all "my" verses seem to contradict one another, and the three you cited, how does that make me wrong????
Actually, if you take the whole thing in context, and operate on the assumtion that God is what He says He is (Just, Merciful, Father, Friend, Love, Truth), there is no contradiction at all.
Ok, I just finished writing a very heartfelt response about the whats and whys of this apparent conflict between Chris and me. And it wouldn’t post.
Is the arc angel of cyberspace trying to keep me in line? It was a real “tell all” sort of comment. And I really have been trying to keep my comments on the subject vague and nonspecific. So do I try to write it all over? Rewrite it, or scrap it. Chris is just Chris. So who cares what he has to say?
I do. Because Chris and his wife have been good friends for 4 years. Because Chris was the best friend Pastor Art had here in this area. Because when all hell broke loose for the Brokop family, Chris and the Church he led worship at were some of the very few that didn’t totally turn their backs on us. It was Chris who got me interested in this crazy world of blogging in the first place. And now, this whole Chris thing is making me crazy. Am I the only one who is sensing a great deal of hostility in his comments? Is this all my fault?Ugggg!
maryellen, what's happening here between you and chris is not good. you know him in person, you two should deal in person. This environment is way too prone to miscommunication. Both of you will benefit from that. There is obviously a long-standing friendship here, one that should be stronger than a few blog posts/comments. That's my .02$, so take it for what it's worth.
"Please read what I write, and quit viewing it from your own emotional “lens”"
I have said here, and to Chris in person, that my emotions have been getting the best of me. I have confessed to being immature and mired down in selfpity. I am working through that. But this is my blog and I will view the comments through any lens I choose to view them.
"There was no respect shown for any of the pastoral staff. No one was asked to leave, they just picked up their toys and went home."
We did not mean to show any disrespect. We listened, and what we heard was that Big Ol' Pastor Art had offended people in the Church and in the Community. That the leadership of the church was always having to put out "Art and Maryellen" fires, and that the leadership of the church thought we would just end up leaving and bad mouthing the church. We did leave, we did not bad mouth the church. As I have stated, emotionally we are not doing so well, we are going through some hard times. WaaaWaaaWaaa. So, I'm immature, I'm whining, poor me...poor us. That's my right, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to. We decided that the church in question, who has a specific mission and purpose, does not need to waste any spiritual or physical resources on us. We're not babies. We're not the people this church is called to minister to. We can work through this on our own. We were only bringing the church down, so we decided to fade away.
"It shows that you care more for yourself than you do for your brothers and sisters."
I don't know how anything I have written here in anyway hurts my brothers and sisters. It is Chris who has made all these statements about him and his church. I have tried to keep them nonspecific.
The Pastor was not wrong in warning me to be careful what I write on the blog. I became all the more careful when I saw that Chris had given him copies of some of the stuff I had written.
but as Chris puts it...
"Therefore I blog with the thought that it has nothing to do with personal relationships. All blog posts, when posted are fair game in terms of I can disagree with anything that I disagree with. The blog is not a forum for church discipline matters or anything of that nature."
enough said.
Grey Owl,
thank you for your observations. i read them after I wrote my last 3 comments. i agree that this is not the best place to aire this stuff. the little girl in me wants to stamp here feet and say "but he started it!"
unfortunately our attempts to sort these things out in person had failed. Art gave up saying, lets get together, a few months ago. We did get together over the holidays, and I thought it had sort of been settled but then something was said that Art probably over-reacted to, and we decided to step quietly away.
There are some specifics which Chris and I probably see a lot differently. I'm sorry that my other blog friends have been drawn into this mess. Thanks for caring.
"I'm sorry that my other blog friends have been drawn into this mess. Thanks for caring."
I would only be sorry if in fact you didn't want us to know of these issues. If you care to share many of us are willing to share, participate, and offer what helpful encouragement we can.
As far the conflict carried on out here, I will make clear that which even you may not know of me. Before I even got to know you, you were the mother of my wife's closest friend. For that alone I would have risked much for your defense, not just in words out here, but in physical requirements if possible and necessary. Since I have come to know you, I conclude I might be driven close to that point just by who you are. If I think your points are wrong, I will let you know, but even if I think they are wrong, if someone seeks to hurt you, know that I am incapable of doing anything but standing ready at your side.
Thank You Wanderer...let it be known that I will not be checking this particular post for further comments. If Grey Owl and Jason wish to continue their discussion, which I find interesting, then feel free to do so...but as for me...this post is old news.
Post a Comment