Jesse Stone
Member
Netchaplain,
Unfortunately, your excellent summary below didn't answer the question. Perhaps in this instance a simple yes or no would suffice.
An excellent summary of the experience of being in Christ. If rightly understood.
Alas, there's a lot of experiential confusion in Christianity. Confusing natural thinking and natural feelings with the real experience of walking according to the Spirit.
Pentecostalism confuses a natural psychological experience associated with what they call Spiritual gifts with the Spiritual functions portrayed in the NT (e.g., 1 Cor 12-14). They're only right in that the Spiritual functions are supposed to operate today as they did in the 1st century. But Pentecostals are operating from the perspective of 20th-21st century Christianity. Rather than from the perspective of the ekklesia (not to be confused with the denominational churches of Christianity) that are also supposed to exist today as they did in the 1st century. Only interpretations of a few Bible verses by Christianity says that both the ekklesia and its Spiritual functions as they existed in the 1st century have long sense been abrogated or have in some sense developed beyond the basic idea portrayed in the NT to the denominational complexity that exists today. Or that it has developed into what is seen today as "The Church" (the stated view of the RCC). Beyond me why the abrogators haven't abrogated the Holy Spirit altogether in their doctrines, having already left him corporately and functionally impotent (with the possible exception of a few individuals who are led by the Spirit) by their abrogations and natural tendencies.
Good feelings about a once for all acceptance of Christ (faith in a date of one's "Spiritual birth") -- or -- about being in the right institution (faith in "the Church") -- or -- about adhering to the right Tradition (faith in "right doctrine that is objective truth"). Too often replaces the reassurance spoken of in Rom 8:16.
Natural affection more often than not replaces the true expression of agape love (1 Cor 13:1-8) that's only possible through submission to the Spirit, which is different from submitting to Christianity and its Traditions (Gal 5:16-26).
The natural desire to "attend Church" without fail every Sunday -- or -- to faithfully "study" the Bible -- or -- to "serve God". Out of respect for following the unspoken laws of a Tradition, the person and/or teachings of one or more respected leaders of "the faith", or a desire for personal knowledge of a Tradition (an interpretation of the Bible at best) with understanding and/or personal action. These things too often replace being truly led by the Spirit and hearing what he is saying (Rom 8:14; Rev 2:7).
Sheep following the wrong shepherd, whether it be themselves or another person, ideal, or thing. This will inevitably lead down the wrong path.
As hard as he may be to understand at times, Søren Kierkegaard nails the attitude that caused the current problem in Christianity by writing about that attitude as it existed in Lutheranism as he experienced it in his time and place (early 19th century in Denmark where Lutheranism was the state religion). His highly existentialist writings mainly had to do with ethics (in relation to the free will of personal choice and responsibility). But I imagine any contention about free will versus the puppet idea (or an idea of judicial justification that's too often used to relinquish personal responsibility) would not be allowed on this venue having the propensity to produce volatile reactions and ad hominems.
Kierkegaard wrote in his journal:
Kierkegaard was a philosopher with a strong belief in God. Much like the contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig. And I have no doubt that he was thinking of Paul when he wrote those words. Paul's sense of personal purpose pervades his writings. Kierkegaard's writings always emphasized the individual over the institution. And in that his thinking was a little like contemporary Protestant Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.
My primary interest insofar as Christianity is concerned is that it portrays by its denominational character the exact opposite of the desire of the one who is supposed to be its Lord, Jesus Christ. I say supposed to be, based on the name it has chosen to represent itself (i.e., Christian and its derivative Christianity).
With a clear dual purpose in mind:
Oneness is intended to reflect the attitude of Paul by all (Phil 3:13-16). The unreserved love of Christ is intrinsic to this kind of unity (Rom 8:31-39; 1 Cor 13:5 "seeks not its own"; see Gal 2:20).
The world knowing Christ and the oneness of those who are in Christ go hand in hand. The former is not possible without the latter. And the world knowing Christianity in lieu of Christ certainly is NOT the same thing as the world knowing Christ. As Christianity is divided, so also are the ones who are in Christ who are in Christianity divided.
The world knows Christ by the unity of his people (1 Pet 2:9-10) in his one kingdom (Col 1:13), wherein God alone is God and the Son of God alone is Lord (1 Cor 8:6). Christianity by its denominationalism is divided into many kingdoms each with its own God and its own Lord (sometimes indistinguishable). The denominational character of Christianity gives the world ample excuse to go its own way without guilt. More and more the world is returning to either a new Dark Ages (which has happened several times in the past, though only one instance is actually called "the Dark Ages") or is tumbling headlong towards THE END.
Jesse Stone asked:
Do you think that being in Christ (Rom 8:1-4, 12:5; 1 Cor 1:27-31, 3:1-4, 15:22; 2 Cor 5:17, 11:3; Gal 2:4; etc.) is the same as being in Christianity?
Unfortunately, your excellent summary below didn't answer the question. Perhaps in this instance a simple yes or no would suffice.
Netchaplain said:
Those who are Christ's are personally confirmed and reassured by the Spirit of God that they "are the children of God" (Rom 8:16). I believe this is obvious to the believer in two ways: by the Father's work (Phil 2:13); by the Spirit's work (Gal 5:17). In these we always find that the "desire to do God's pleasure" is ultimately always made most important to us by the Spirit, and the priority is of course loving God first, which can only be accomplished by loving others as Christ loves us (John 15:12; 1John 4:20, 21).
An excellent summary of the experience of being in Christ. If rightly understood.
Alas, there's a lot of experiential confusion in Christianity. Confusing natural thinking and natural feelings with the real experience of walking according to the Spirit.
Pentecostalism confuses a natural psychological experience associated with what they call Spiritual gifts with the Spiritual functions portrayed in the NT (e.g., 1 Cor 12-14). They're only right in that the Spiritual functions are supposed to operate today as they did in the 1st century. But Pentecostals are operating from the perspective of 20th-21st century Christianity. Rather than from the perspective of the ekklesia (not to be confused with the denominational churches of Christianity) that are also supposed to exist today as they did in the 1st century. Only interpretations of a few Bible verses by Christianity says that both the ekklesia and its Spiritual functions as they existed in the 1st century have long sense been abrogated or have in some sense developed beyond the basic idea portrayed in the NT to the denominational complexity that exists today. Or that it has developed into what is seen today as "The Church" (the stated view of the RCC). Beyond me why the abrogators haven't abrogated the Holy Spirit altogether in their doctrines, having already left him corporately and functionally impotent (with the possible exception of a few individuals who are led by the Spirit) by their abrogations and natural tendencies.
Good feelings about a once for all acceptance of Christ (faith in a date of one's "Spiritual birth") -- or -- about being in the right institution (faith in "the Church") -- or -- about adhering to the right Tradition (faith in "right doctrine that is objective truth"). Too often replaces the reassurance spoken of in Rom 8:16.
Natural affection more often than not replaces the true expression of agape love (1 Cor 13:1-8) that's only possible through submission to the Spirit, which is different from submitting to Christianity and its Traditions (Gal 5:16-26).
The natural desire to "attend Church" without fail every Sunday -- or -- to faithfully "study" the Bible -- or -- to "serve God". Out of respect for following the unspoken laws of a Tradition, the person and/or teachings of one or more respected leaders of "the faith", or a desire for personal knowledge of a Tradition (an interpretation of the Bible at best) with understanding and/or personal action. These things too often replace being truly led by the Spirit and hearing what he is saying (Rom 8:14; Rev 2:7).
Sheep following the wrong shepherd, whether it be themselves or another person, ideal, or thing. This will inevitably lead down the wrong path.
As hard as he may be to understand at times, Søren Kierkegaard nails the attitude that caused the current problem in Christianity by writing about that attitude as it existed in Lutheranism as he experienced it in his time and place (early 19th century in Denmark where Lutheranism was the state religion). His highly existentialist writings mainly had to do with ethics (in relation to the free will of personal choice and responsibility). But I imagine any contention about free will versus the puppet idea (or an idea of judicial justification that's too often used to relinquish personal responsibility) would not be allowed on this venue having the propensity to produce volatile reactions and ad hominems.
Kierkegaard wrote in his journal:
"What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die." (as quoted in Wikipedia in the entry titled Soren Kirkegaard)
Kierkegaard was a philosopher with a strong belief in God. Much like the contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig. And I have no doubt that he was thinking of Paul when he wrote those words. Paul's sense of personal purpose pervades his writings. Kierkegaard's writings always emphasized the individual over the institution. And in that his thinking was a little like contemporary Protestant Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.
Let me know what your think of this reply so I may know more accurately where your interests are.
My primary interest insofar as Christianity is concerned is that it portrays by its denominational character the exact opposite of the desire of the one who is supposed to be its Lord, Jesus Christ. I say supposed to be, based on the name it has chosen to represent itself (i.e., Christian and its derivative Christianity).
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me: (John 17:20-23 KJV)
With a clear dual purpose in mind:
that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23 KJV)
Oneness is intended to reflect the attitude of Paul by all (Phil 3:13-16). The unreserved love of Christ is intrinsic to this kind of unity (Rom 8:31-39; 1 Cor 13:5 "seeks not its own"; see Gal 2:20).
The world knowing Christ and the oneness of those who are in Christ go hand in hand. The former is not possible without the latter. And the world knowing Christianity in lieu of Christ certainly is NOT the same thing as the world knowing Christ. As Christianity is divided, so also are the ones who are in Christ who are in Christianity divided.
The world knows Christ by the unity of his people (1 Pet 2:9-10) in his one kingdom (Col 1:13), wherein God alone is God and the Son of God alone is Lord (1 Cor 8:6). Christianity by its denominationalism is divided into many kingdoms each with its own God and its own Lord (sometimes indistinguishable). The denominational character of Christianity gives the world ample excuse to go its own way without guilt. More and more the world is returning to either a new Dark Ages (which has happened several times in the past, though only one instance is actually called "the Dark Ages") or is tumbling headlong towards THE END.