FREE WILL

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

Regarding the authoritative basis for doctrinal beliefs, I think you're saying that you are against group X who claim that man has such authority and you're against group Y who claim that the Bible has such authority and that you are for group Z who claim that Jesus is the authority. Have I got this much right?

... no. I am not a third group. I am outside of Christianity altogether.

I didn't say that these groups were Christian groups. In light of that, would you be for group Z ?

In the end, are you trusting in Jesus to teach you what the Bible is actually saying, or are you trusting in your own ability to interpret the Bible correctly?

I think I have already answered that in my earlier post - I'll quote it here again -
"Well, as for me, this is what I believe -
Whatever I read from the Bible or whatever I listen to, from any man, I may privately interpret in my mind as man myself. It will be very flawed when it's my interpretation - because of unsound translations, incomplete knowledge of man or my own lack of wisdom in interpretation.
If left to myself, it would definitely remain misunderstood. But the Spirit of grace in me teaches me the truth - either as I read or after I have read and made my interpretations. The Spirit corrects my interpretations by teaching me the lies to reject and the truths to embrace. Who does this - the Spirit in me. How is it done - by leading me to other parts of Scripture to confirm the truth or to reveal the inconsistency of the lie. "

FC, the question still stands.
“is there any belief that you hold presently that you attribute to being taught by the Spirit in you but cannot make a case for it from any of the Scriptures?â€


Also, I was keen on getting this answered but it seems you may have overlooked it - I'm quoting it here -
" How does one justify his own conviction that what he believes as true is indeed absolutely true? Does he say his own conviction of it being from God is the basis for his believing it to be true. Then man(his own conviction) becomes the authority of that belief. Or does he seek consistency and confirmation from Scripture (led by the Spirit)? There Scripture(revealed as God's Word) becomes the authority. I am unable to see how else you could learn truth. Fill in on your process of increasing in the knowledge of God and coming into all truth. "

Note, when I claim Scriptures to have authority, I do not mean that it is the end in itself. We need Christ to open Scriptures to our hearts and without Him one may read the Bible but many times and yet not come to any true knowledge. What I need to know is how do you arrive at whatever you now believe, if not for truth revealed by God in the Scriptures?

Not to make this a debate - where Paul says we are no longer under the law, the 'law' could mean the Law of Moses, or the entire OT , or a single governing rule. How does one 'interpret' which of these is referred to here? The moment anyone concludes upon a meaning, has he not interpreted the verse ie has he not made clear the meaning of that verse to himself? In this context, explain to me how you do not practice interpretation.

And don’t look at these things just in the light of yourself as an individual. Consider them in the light of a community.

The Church is a community and God is sufficient to lead His people into all knowledge and truth. Irrespective of denominations, God is finishing His work in all He is working in. Can denominations foil His plan - can man's interpretations overrule His teaching us. I don't believe so.

You obviously believe in the legitimacy of the practice of interpretation in relation to the Bible.

Not the sufficiency of man's interpretation. I'm saying that it is inevitable that man interprets but it is God who sufficiently teaches truth into his heart.

Faith into Christ and baptism into Christ is how we become “in Christâ€. We are not to believe in Christ as if he is just some religious philosopher from the past, like Aristotle or Marcus Aurelius.

Agreed. You have stated here what believing in Christ is not. I have seen your argument on differentiating between 'in' and 'into'. For me to know the implications of it, kindly add to the above, what you mean by 'faith into Christ'.

I don’t believe that it is our own faith that Justifies us.

The moment you say 'our own' - doesn't it fall under our flesh? And how can anything we do by our flesh amount to anything good. Besides, 'our faith' has to be qualified with an object of faith - and if that object of faith is God, then we cannot say we are saved by something we do or think but rather that God has worked something to save us. Else, we still are under the law where we've made 'our faith' yet another work to merit salvation. So I'd agree with you to disagree that our own faith justifies us.

 

[Former Christian]

Reba

I was able to read one message. But when I went to retrieve it to respond to it, I couldn't find it. And three other message have disappeared now. The last one I decided to read it at least. But when I punched the button, it acted like I punched cancel. Can't tell how much of this due to my own ignorance. These message things work differently in every forum. But I'd be appreciative of anyone who can help me clear this up.

Thanks for offering

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Reba

I was able to read one message. But when I went to retrieve it to respond to it, I couldn't find it. And three other message have disappeared now. The last one I decided to read it at least. But when I punched the button, it acted like I punched cancel. Can't tell how much of this due to my own ignorance. These message things work differently in every forum. But I'd be appreciative of anyone who can help me clear this up.

Thanks for offering

FC

go to new messages on the page, and then once it loads go to inbox and they should be there unless you have deleted them. this site doesnt delete messages for you, you have to do that manually.

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran and Reba

I got a message from Reba. I was careful to observe what was going on. When I clicked OK it was blocked. Strange that the first message wasn’t blocked.

Procedure for messages received:

Go to my Viewer Profile

Clik “send private message†(hard to read)

Clik “Inboxâ€

All messages received are there.

Thank you very much. The help of both of you is greatly appreciated.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“and that you are for group Z who claim that Jesus is the authority.â€

Since I believe that Jesus is the only authority as Lord, I guess I would be in group Z.


“Well, as for me, this is what I believe -
Whatever I read from the Bible or whatever I listen to, from any man, I may privately interpret in my mind as man myself. It will be very flawed when it's my interpretation - because of unsound translations, incomplete knowledge of man or my own lack of wisdom in interpretation.
If left to myself, it would definitely remain misunderstood. But the Spirit of grace in me teaches me the truth - either as I read or after I have read and made my interpretations. The Spirit corrects my interpretations by teaching me the lies to reject and the truths to embrace. Who does this - the Spirit in me. How is it done - by leading me to other parts of Scripture to confirm the truth or to reveal the inconsistency of the lie.â€

A little hard for me to understand. So I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you answered in favor of Jesus over interpretation in this case.


“FC, the question still stands.
“is there any belief that you hold presently that you attribute to being taught by the Spirit in you but cannot make a case for it from any of the Scriptures?â€â€

To the best of my knowledge, I believe in no doctrine that is not found somewhere in Scripture, especially in the New Testament.


“How does one justify his own conviction that what he believes as true is indeed absolutely true?â€

There is no way to tell for sure. And that is why we need to meet with one another. Not as authorities, but as equals. So we can share , rather than dictate. This problem is solved in Catholicism by claiming authority for the Church. If the Church believes it, as embodied in its Tradition and as explained by the current leadership, one can rest assured that it is the truth. The Protestants don’t make the claim, but they practice the claim. One only has to observe what is believed and the diversity of belief to be able to see that this authoritarian approach is human, not Divine. The Divine element alone is authoritative. Jesus as teacher and hearing what the Spirit is saying to the Churches. The Spirit gives us what is of Christ. The Divine authority is not divided with Jesus teaching one thing and the Spirit giving us something different. Jesus and the Spirit are one in relation to what we receive. I say we are taught by Jesus who uses the Bible through the Holy Spirit. But when we hear the teaching of Jesus and hear what the Spirit is saying, we are hearing the same thing because they are one and the same as far as the teaching goes. Just like Jesus said the same things that the Father gave him to say.


“Note, when I claim Scriptures to have authority, I do not mean that it is the end in itself. We need Christ to open Scriptures to our hearts and without Him one may read the Bible but many times and yet not come to any true knowledge. What I need to know is how do you arrive at whatever you now believe, if not for truth revealed by God in the Scriptures?â€

I don’t believe the Bible has any authority whatsoever because it has no life in itself. The life is in either Jesus or the interpreter. And due to the differences in the two kinds of life, They don’t operate together as some interpreters claim creating some sort of mixed bag. If there is leaven it leavens the whole lump. The interpreter does in fact make the Bible an end in itself.

Jesus opens the Scriptures to our spirit. The human spirit is connected to the human mind (Eph 4:23). It is not connected to the heart. There is a connection between our human spirit and the Holy Spirit. And Jesus teaches us through this connection. Now, this is my own belief. There are many theories concerning the nature of man. Most Christians believe that the human spirit is either synonymous with the mind or it refers to a higher part of the mind. Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that man is a tripartite being composed of spirit, soul and body. I believe that man is much more complex than that. Your idea that Jesus opens our hearts to receive his teaching is a Traditional belief.
The significance of your question is in the place of Scripture in the scheme of our knowledge of reality. The place of Scripture to the interpreter is as a leaping off point for their interpretations. As you said earlier, apart from the Divine life, one could read the Bible all day long and receive no benefit from it whatsoever. The way to understand reality is not through the Bible alone. There is no such thing. Either the Bible is interpreted by human life or it is revealed by Divine Life. We understand the Bible through the Holy Spirit. It stands to reason that not only are we to serve God in our Spirit (Rom 1:9) and walk by the Spirit to keep ourselves from sin (Gal 5:16-25), but also we must be walking by the Spirit in order for Jesus to reveal the true understanding of what the Biblical writers are saying (Rom 8:5-8). And we must be turned in the right direction (Col 3:1-4) to not only keep ourselves from sin (3:5--9) but to be conformed to Jesus Christ (3:10-14). And also for the teaching of Jesus to dwell in us richly, richly enough that we can readily share the life therein with one another apart from divisions due to opinions or interpretations (3:15-17).

“Not to make this a debate - where Paul says we are no longer under the law, the 'law' could mean the Law of Moses, or the entire OT , or a single governing rule. How does one 'interpret' which of these is referred to here? The moment anyone concludes upon a meaning, has he not interpreted the verse ie has he not made clear the meaning of that verse to himself? In this context, explain to me how you do not practice interpretation.â€

Jesus fulfills the Law. In Christ is our relationship with the Law. Do you really think that is just an interpretation?


“The Church is a community and God is sufficient to lead His people into all knowledge and truth. Irrespective of denominations, God is finishing His work in all He is working in. Can denominations foil His plan - can man's interpretations overrule His teaching us. I don't believe so.â€

And yet it is constantly doing so in Christianity. How do you explain that? I explain it by the fact that we have free will. We aren’t robots doing the bidding of our programmers. The root meaning of heresy is “to chooseâ€. We can choose this day whom we will serve. We can choose to believe in our own interpretations of the Bible or we can choose to believe what Jesus teaches us using the Bible. Christianity has chosen in favor of its own interpretations. And that is a hindrance to the plan of God. Don’t think that God is not operating in spite of Christianity. God’s plan will be fulfilled with us or without us.


“Faith into Christ and baptism into Christ is how we become “in Christâ€. We are not to believe in Christ as if he is just some religious philosopher from the past, like Aristotle or Marcus Aurelius.

Agreed. You have stated here what believing in Christ is not. I have seen your argument on differentiating between 'in' and 'into'. For me to know the implications of it, kindly add to the above, what you mean by 'faith into Christ'.â€

I have given you the mechanics. For the experience I direct you toward Jesus.


“The moment you say 'our own' (faith) - doesn't it fall under our flesh?â€

That is one of the Traditional views. Read Romans 7 and the answer to Paul’s question in Romans 8. Our faith can be affected by the flesh if we are walking fully by it. And believers and non-believers alike can do that. But most people don’t walk fully by the flesh. No one is just flesh. They also have a soul. And the flesh is in the body. The flesh affects the soul as does the world through the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes. But that doesn’t at all imply that we can’t exercise faith. Every one exercises faith in something. It may be in the wrong thing, but the faith is there and the works that expresses the faith as well. You should read about Steven Seagal and listen to his interviews sometime.

But human faith is insufficient to Justify anyone. That is why we must be Justified by the faith of another. Our human faith is only sufficient to put us into the position to be Justified. In Christ. And even then it must be augmented by baptism by the Spirit. There is no such thing as faith alone. That is made quite clear by James. Our human faith is expressed by works, such as water baptism, a desire for the milk of the word, etc. But none of these things Justifies us. It is the faith of Christ and the works of Christ that express that faith that Justifies. So, with the Protestant I say that we are Justified by Christ alone. But apart from the Protestant I also say that it is not by faith alone, whether our faith that puts us into Christ or the faith of Christ that Justifies.

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran and Reba

I got a message from Reba. I was careful to observe what was going on. When I clicked OK it was blocked. Strange that the first message wasn’t blocked.

Procedure for messages received:

Go to my Viewer Profile

Clik “send private message†(hard to read)

Clik “Inboxâ€

All messages received are there.

Thank you very much. The help of both of you is greatly appreciated.

FC

ah the pop up,i click ignore and then i go to the private message link on the main page and then i look for the inbox. have you tried that?

 

[stovebolts]

Adullam

You still believe that Christianity refers to the community of believers. So, for you what you say is reasonable.

But I no longer see Christianity in the same light as you do. To me, Christianity is a community that includes anyone who desires to call themselves a Christian. To me, Christianity is a community of institutions with a long history, some longer than others. To me, Christianity is denominational in nature and always has been. To me, Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible, other than the claims of Christians that their interpretive opinions, many of which have gained authoritative status, is related to the Bible. I would be a hypocrite to continue to be a part of Christianity seeing it in that light.

As for the term Christian, I think that I have made myself clear elsewhere why I no longer use that term to refer to myself.

I understand that there are “Catholics†within the Catholic Church who no longer believe as a Catholic. They only continue to practice Catholicism because they are loathe to abandon their brothers, friends and relatives, just because there is a subversion of the truth. They want to make a stand for the truth from within. Are they right to do so? They certainly think so. And until they themselves come to see things differently, then they do what they feel they must do.

They don’t see that making a stand from within, however long that might last if they are truly making a stand, actually further convolutes the truth so as to make it of none effect. The community will eventually have to ask the obvious, “If you don’t believe what we believe, why are you here? If you are still here, then you must still believe it. Or are you a troublemaker disturbing our peace?†Luther already went through that. Jesus and the Apostles already went through that. The examples of what they had to go through should be sufficient to give anyone the wisdom that neither a stand nor a change can be effectual from within. The leaders of the denomination not only have the power to authoritatively discern true doctrines, but they also have the authority to remove those who don’t believe the same as the community, or at least to practice whatever form of closed communion that they practice.

We should meet together as an expression of the Body of Christ, not with a particular denomination of Christianity, or as another denomination of Christianity. And that wouldn’t be as difficult as it seems. The first century believers didn’t need to build special buildings to meet in,. So also us. After the destruction of the Temple, all they had left were the homes of the believers. They already had been meeting in homes, they just continued to do so. After they were scattered from just meeting in Jerusalem, they had quite an effect. There is no need of rulers. There is need of leaders, leaders who will lead us into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. Christ should always be Lord. If someone comes in and tries to impose their denominational interpretations upon us we should follow the suggestion of Paul. We don’t have to receive the interpretations. Just continue to walk by the Spirit.

This is just by way of a practical suggestion. Just as yours is. I’m sure there are other practical suggestions out there.

FC

Hello FC and welcome!

I respect and appreciate your post. A question I have to ask you though is this. It seems that you want everyone to be like you... Isn't that what radically occured within the Protestant movement? I mean, so many people thinking that the are right and disagreeing with everyone else, so they start their own church based on their idea of what Christianity should look like.

But this isn't what I see within the pages of the New Covenant. For example, Paul writes to the Christian gentiles in Rome because not only are the Jews coming back to Rome after Nero ran them out, but Christian Jews are coming back too.

Paul doesn't try to make the gentiles believe lock in step like their Jewish brothers in Christ, nor does Paul try to get the Jewish believers to walk hand in hand with their Gentile brothers. No, what Paul does is tries to unite them on their common bond, which is in Christ even amongst their diversity.

Just skimming the NT and we see a load of diversity within the various cultures who received Christ. Simply put, Unity is not uniformity. Unity by way of scriptures is intrenched with diversity.

As Christians, we are allowed our differences, but what we can't do is divide over many of them like we have. Also, what we can't do, is force our interpretations, or our mode of interpretation on others. All we can do is present it.

Grace and peace.

 

[Adullam]

Adullam

You still believe that Christianity refers to the community of believers. So, for you what you say is reasonable.

But I no longer see Christianity in the same light as you do. To me, Christianity is a community that includes anyone who desires to call themselves a Christian. To me, Christianity is a community of institutions with a long history, some longer than others. To me, Christianity is denominational in nature and always has been. To me, Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible, other than the claims of Christians that their interpretive opinions, many of which have gained authoritative status, is related to the Bible. I would be a hypocrite to continue to be a part of Christianity seeing it in that light.

As for the term Christian, I think that I have made myself clear elsewhere why I no longer use that term to refer to myself.

I understand that there are “Catholics†within the Catholic Church who no longer believe as a Catholic. They only continue to practice Catholicism because they are loathe to abandon their brothers, friends and relatives, just because there is a subversion of the truth. They want to make a stand for the truth from within. Are they right to do so? They certainly think so. And until they themselves come to see things differently, then they do what they feel they must do.

They don’t see that making a stand from within, however long that might last if they are truly making a stand, actually further convolutes the truth so as to make it of none effect. The community will eventually have to ask the obvious, “If you don’t believe what we believe, why are you here? If you are still here, then you must still believe it. Or are you a troublemaker disturbing our peace?†Luther already went through that. Jesus and the Apostles already went through that. The examples of what they had to go through should be sufficient to give anyone the wisdom that neither a stand nor a change can be effectual from within. The leaders of the denomination not only have the power to authoritatively discern true doctrines, but they also have the authority to remove those who don’t believe the same as the community, or at least to practice whatever form of closed communion that they practice.

We should meet together as an expression of the Body of Christ, not with a particular denomination of Christianity, or as another denomination of Christianity. And that wouldn’t be as difficult as it seems. The first century believers didn’t need to build special buildings to meet in,. So also us. After the destruction of the Temple, all they had left were the homes of the believers. They already had been meeting in homes, they just continued to do so. After they were scattered from just meeting in Jerusalem, they had quite an effect. There is no need of rulers. There is need of leaders, leaders who will lead us into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. Christ should always be Lord. If someone comes in and tries to impose their denominational interpretations upon us we should follow the suggestion of Paul. We don’t have to receive the interpretations. Just continue to walk by the Spirit.

This is just by way of a practical suggestion. Just as yours is. I’m sure there are other practical suggestions out there.

FC

I think that there is an ever increasing number of Christians who are exercising their freedom in Christ in order to join with Him outside the camp! This exodus will increase more and more as people seek for an expression of the church that bears a greater resemblance to the biblical standard of power and holiness.

I agree that no reformation is possible. We need transformation.

 

[childeye]

Former Christian;551222]Smaller




Ah yes. The Devil made me do it. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed Satan. There’s no way we’re ever going to take responsibility for anything ourselves. Nothing ever changes. There is no real reason to repent because its not our fault. We didn’t have anything to do with it. The Devil made me do it.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

But that is what the scripture says happened, except for the blame part. Eve was beguiled through subtlty by the most cunning of God's creatures. Take it easy on our Father Adam. He most likely was wondering why the woman didn't drop dead and he probably felt he could trust the woman who was a piece of himself. I really don't think any body else would have faired any better. So why would you rather condemn than forgive? You are only condemning yourself along with them by doing so. Jesus paid the price and he forgave. He suffered greatly to destroy the works of Satan who is our accuser. Think about that. Is condemnation Satanic or Christlike? Love makes people responsible people.

 

[warhorse]

But that is what the scripture says happened, except for the blame part. Eve was beguiled through subtlty by the most cunning of God's creatures. Take it easy on our Father Adam. He most likely was wondering why the woman didn't drop dead and he probably felt he could trust the woman who was a piece of himself. I really don't think any body else would have faired any better. So why would you rather condemn than forgive. You are only condemning yourself along with them by doing so.

Exactly you see freewill supporters are excepting responsability for there own sins, but the calvenists put the resposability for sin on God, presuming his sovereignty dominated our ability to choose.

 

[childeye]

Exactly you see freewill supporters are excepting responsability for there own sins, but the calvenists put the resposability for sin on God, presuming his sovereignty dominated our ability to choose.

What you are calling responsible is for all intent and purposes just blame, condemnation. Caring how your actions affect others is taking true responsiblity and that is the providence of Love. I don't ascribe to Calvinism or Arminianism. Neither factor in the possibility that it's no one's fault. So how is blaming people if they cannot help what they do acting responsibly?

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

How does one justify his own conviction that what he believes as true is indeed absolutely true?

There is no way to tell for sure.

I have a couple of critical issues with this answer.
Firstly, it seems to go against Scripture -
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
If there is no way of being sure of the truth, then how can I believe or trust it as truth? A Belief is any premise I assign a truth value to. But if this cannot be known and verified to be absolutely true, then my assigning truth values is meaningless and hence all my beliefs are in vain.
If my belief that God exists has no way of being shown true, independent of myself and all other flesh, then how can I believe in God? I don't understand how you mean this.

Secondly, if there is no way of concluding something as truth, then you cannot conclude on anything as untruth - which is what you've been categorizing the teachings of 'Christianity' as. Isn't this inconsistent?


And please note, all my questions are intended only to gain understanding on your beliefs and perspective - it is not to defend any denomination or tradition.

I say we are taught by Jesus who uses the Bible through the Holy Spirit.

Please qualify this statement completely. How does Jesus teach us? Does Jesus use the Bible for everything He teaches - can I say that the Bible is sufficient in the sense that it contains all truth needed to equip us for all/every good work but insufficient in that we cannot attain unto this truth without Christ teaching us.

Your idea that Jesus opens our hearts to receive his teaching is a Traditional belief.

I have some points to clarify here -
Firstly, I'll take it that you're sharing this piece of information with me as an equal. You start off with a "this is my own belief" disclaimer and then end up making a conclusion. Is this a personal conclusion or is this some truth you are sharing with me? At the time of making this statement, did you believe that this statement was true and if so, on what basis? It's difficult to convey emotion and tone here, but I'm not asking this because I'm offended - I'm just asking it as a matter of fact. Because the statement comes across as a conclusion on absolute truth and not as something you doubted could be false.

Secondly, it'd be nice of you to show why this matters. Undoubtedly, any increase in knowledge is good but knowing the implications of such knowledge sets up a lot. When I read your treatment of why it can't be the heart that the Lord opens but rather the spirit - the only question I had is, how does this information edify anyone. I'm pretty sure there must be something positive in it, but without being aware of it, dwelling on this is difficult.

Thirdly, your statement that "It is not connected to the heart." needs some basis - where did you get this from? I thought the very fact that God writes His laws into our hearts gave some connection between our hearts and His teaching us.

Fourthly, I was merely quoting from this Scripture -
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
You'll have to make a strong case for this being just a Traditional belief and not the truth.

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

where Paul says we are no longer under the law, the 'law' could mean the Law of Moses, or the entire OT , or a single governing rule. How does one 'interpret' which of these is referred to here? The moment anyone concludes upon a meaning, has he not interpreted the verse ie has he not made clear the meaning of that verse to himself? In this context, explain to me how you do not practice interpretation.

Jesus fulfills the Law. In Christ is our relationship with the Law. Do you really think that is just an interpretation?

But the question is not - "has Jesus fulfilled the Law", or "Are we, in Christ, related to the Law".
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Scripture states we are not under the law. Now, what law am I not under? That is the question.
The moment you answer this question, aren't you interpreting - since there is more than one meaning that could be assigned to the word 'Law' itself?

FC-
"I explain it by the fact that we have free will."
Finally, we discuss the topic of this thread. You do realize that a fact is something that is true - what is the basis for this conclusion. Also, I can't see how you could have arrived at this without interpreting.

But most people don’t walk fully by the flesh.

What is it that you mean by "walking by the flesh"? I have already stated my beliefs on this topic in this thread (pg.14).
Also, when you qualify this with "most" people, are you referring to unbelievers also? Are you saying that some unbelievers do not walk by the flesh at times and hence may not sin at those times? I think not, but I wouldn't want to presume.

Again, thank you for addressing all the points.

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

Man, I have fallen way behind on this thread.

The practical experience will come with the next message I receive.

Thanks

FC

 

[Former Christian]

SteveBolts

You said, “It seems that you want everyone to be like you... Isn't that what radically occured within the Protestant movement? I mean, so many people thinking that the are right and disagreeing with everyone else, so they start their own church based on their idea of what Christianity should look like.â€

You’ll have to read more of what I wrote to see that my situation and that of the original Protestants is not the same.


You said, “But this isn't what I see within the pages of the New Covenant. For example, Paul writes to the Christian gentiles in Rome because not only are the Jews coming back to Rome after Nero ran them out, but Christian Jews are coming back too.

Paul doesn't try to make the gentiles believe lock in step like their Jewish brothers in Christ, nor does Paul try to get the Jewish believers to walk hand in hand with their Gentile brothers. No, what Paul does is tries to unite them on their common bond, which is in Christ even amongst their diversity.

Just skimming the NT and we see a load of diversity within the various cultures who received Christ. Simply put, Unity is not uniformity. Unity by way of scriptures is intrenched with diversity.

As Christians, we are allowed our differences, but what we can't do is divide over many of them like we have. Also, what we can't do, is force our interpretations, or our mode of interpretation on others. All we can do is present it.â€

Precisely what I’m talking about doctrinally speaking. But is what you pointed out from the Bible what we see in Christianity? That is the question. I say no, and because I say no, I am a

Former Christian

 

[Former Christian]

Adullam

You said, “I think that there is an ever increasing number of Christians who are exercising their freedom in Christ in order to join with Him outside the camp! This exodus will increase more and more as people seek for an expression of the church that bears a greater resemblance to the biblical standard of power and holiness.â€

It is my prayer that you are right. I would only add, “standard of power and holiness and lifeâ€. But perhaps you were including life in power and holiness.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

You said, “But that is what the scripture says happened, except for the blame part. Eve was beguiled through subtlty by the most cunning of God's creatures. Take it easy on our Father Adam. He most likely was wondering why the woman didn't drop dead and he probably felt he could trust the woman who was a piece of himself. I really don't think any body else would have faired any better. So why would you rather condemn than forgive? You are only condemning yourself along with them by doing so. Jesus paid the price and he forgave. He suffered greatly to destroy the works of Satan who is our accuser. Think about that. Is condemnation Satanic or Christlike? Love makes people responsible people.â€

The devil didn’t make Eve do anything. She was tricked. But Adam wasn’t. That is what Paul pointed out. And that is why it is through Adam we inherit our sin nature.

I don’t remember condemning anyone. I don’t know what you are referring to.

As far as the rest, I agree. At least I did until I got to your response to Warhorse. Now I’m just confused.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“I have a couple of critical issues with this answer (regarding uncertainty in our knowledge of truth).
Firstly, it seems to go against Scripture -
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.â€

Jesus is referring to himself, not just doctrine, (John 8:33 and following, 14:6).


“If there is no way of being sure of the truth, then how can I believe or trust it as truth? A Belief is any premise I assign a truth value to. But if this cannot be known and verified to be absolutely true, then my assigning truth values is meaningless and hence all my beliefs are in vain. If my belief that God exists has no way of being shown true, independent of myself and all other flesh, then how can I believe in God? I don't understand how you mean this.â€

And therein is the quandary. The first thing you should consider is how many times you referred to yourself in that paragraph. If all you’re concerned about is your own need for knowing objective truth, then perhaps your questioning the matter is moot. Whatever you decide is truth will be truth to you. Secondly, you should consider why our understanding of truth is so relative. Even those who have one book in common do not agree on what is truth. There are over 3000 denominations that is solid evidence of that fact. It is the one who insists on there being one understanding of truth that ends up being either a relativist saying that everyone’s truth is really truth or just thinking their own truth is the truth and that everyone else must believe in that truth or else. Thirdly, consider the fact of the limitation of man, physically and spiritually.

The Catholics solve this problem by saying that the Church originating with Christ himself teaches the truth. And the Protestants have followed suit, but claim that it is they who have the truth. If it is doctrinal certainty you want you will have to choose a denomination and stay there. How such a determination is made is entirely up to you because in the end it is you that must accept the criteria and the choice based on the criteria. I suggest Catholicism. It is the oldest, it acknowledges the need for an authoritative interpreter that can tell you what is “truthâ€, and it is the only Church that is honest enough to acknowledge that it has such an interpreter. And you can rest assured that you are trusting in something tangible that is on this earth that assures you that God exists. God is not so tangible. God can’t be seen. And what is worse, there is no way to prove that God exists because there are as many arguments against the existence of God as there are for the existence of God. But the Church is right there in your face telling you that God exists. Again the choice of criteria to believe one way or the other is your own choice. What it comes down to, if you want certainty, you will have to trust in yourself, your own judgment. Of course, the wisest of men said, Trust in Jehovah, lean not on your own understanding. What are you going to do?


“Secondly, if there is no way of concluding something as truth, then you cannot conclude on anything as untruth - which is what you've been categorizing the teachings of 'Christianity' as. Isn't this inconsistent?â€

When there are doctrinal differences to the point that denominations are created, it is reasonable to assume that Christianity only represents itself, not God, not Jesus Christ, not Paul or Peter, not the Bible, certainly not objective truth. If truth can be found in the sense of the certainty that you seek, Christianity is not one of the places I would look.

You are not considering the possibility of a growth factor. You are not considering that perhaps our minds are just too limited to be certain of doctrinal truth and that the way to know truth is not in the exercise of our own mind. You are not considering that while for the world truth is to be found in ideas, truth for us who are in Christ is to be found in a person.


“(FC said) I say we are taught by Jesus who uses the Bible through the Holy Spirit.

Please qualify this statement completely. How does Jesus teach us? Does Jesus use the Bible for everything He teaches - can I say that the Bible is sufficient in the sense that it contains all truth needed to equip us for all/every good work but insufficient in that we cannot attain unto this truth without Christ teaching us.â€

I am unsure how to answer you because I’m really at a loss to understand what you are searching for. The statement seems pretty specific and inclusive to me. Perhaps considering the following will be of help.

It is Jesus who teaches us, not we ourselves (Eph 4:20-21). Even when certain ones have the gift of teaching (not interpreting) it is through the Spirit that the gift is exercised (1Cor 12-14).

The whole purpose of the Bible given to us by God, and it is for us more than it was for the Jews (1 Pet 1:10-12), is so that Jesus might teach us concerning reality, a reality that is in himself (John 14:6; The Greek word translated “truth†carries within it the meaning of reality, the wholeness of reality. Not just the truth of ideas that may or may not be the same as objective truth.) We are a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). It is this reality that Jesus teaches us so that we may experience it. Not just head knowledge. The Bible used just to acquire head knowledge, as it is used in Christianity (the reason why authoritative doctrinal statements are created and necessary), is a misuse of the Bible. The Bible is purposely not written as a Theological Textbook. To understand 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the sense of systematic theology is to relegate the Bible to the status of a human writing. And human writings can’t be trusted to offer anything more than ideas that may or may not be related to objective truth.

Rather, the Bible is written as a collection of narrative experiences. The Bible is intended to be used to teach us experientially, experiential reality rather than the truth of ideas. The truth of ideas is for philosophers. You won’t even find certainty of doctrinal truth within the pages of the Bible, no matter how much you interpret it. Take a cue from Christianity that has been trying to do so for centuries. Jesus teaches experientially concerning the new creation that is in him. And he uses the Bible to do that. Some may say that after reaching a certain level of maturity the Bible is no longer necessary. Listen to Paul who said, “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.†(Phil 3:12-16 KJV)

We are connected to the Holy Spirit by our human spirit. The connection between the two is our only connection to the supernatural realm. The supernatural realm is generally called the Spiritual realm by those who are in Christ because of our connection to it through the Holy Spirit. The mistake of the Buddhist is not in their realization that there is a supernatural realm. Their mistake is in their attempt to understand that realm through meditation rather than through the connection to that realm through the Holy Spirit. Jesus teaches us through our connection to the supernatural realm, the realm where Jesus is today. He teaches through and with the Holy Spirit. When we hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches, we are simultaneously hearing what Jesus Christ is saying to the Churches.


“Is this a personal conclusion or is this some truth you are sharing with me?â€

Everything I share is truth as I see it. If you don’t see the same things that I do, then you are obligated to go with truth as you see it. We are all in a state of growth, or we should be. It is impossible to make authoritative statements under those circumstances. What is true today, tomorrow may be added to or even changed if we discover that the truth we believed yesterday is wrong. Those who believe in authoritative truth in Christianity have stopped growing in the experience of Christ, even though they may still be growing in their understanding of the authoritative doctrinal truth of their denomination. Indeed, often times growth in denominational doctrine is often confused for or equated with growth in Christ. We can only share out of the treasure that we have at the moment. And sometimes mixed with that treasure may still be some of our experience while conformed to the world. If we can relate to the treasure shared, then we can add it to our own treasure. If we can’t, then we exercise patience and humility. The treasure that we have is experiential.

Now, doctrines are a different story. Whether we accept or deny that we have any free will is doctrinal and the opinions concerning doctrines abound and will never be resolved because of their nature. Forums of every sort are fueled primarily by differences in doctrine. You’ll notice that experience rarely comes up. Most people who emphasize doctrines rarely accept the experiential nature of our relationship with the supernatural. It’s all just “mystical†and seems too much like the occult to them. The incongruity of denying the experiential, the mystical, nature of being in Christ while simultaneously encouraging one to have a relationship with Christ is ludicrous to me, but obviously not to the one who holds such a position.

To be continued

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“Secondly, it'd be nice of you to show why this matters. Undoubtedly, any increase in knowledge is good but knowing the implications of such knowledge sets up a lot. When I read your treatment of why it can't be the heart that the Lord opens but rather the spirit - the only question I had is, how does this information edify anyone. I'm pretty sure there must be something positive in it, but without being aware of it, dwelling on this is difficult.â€

Without going into a lot of detail, the heart is indeed connected to the mind. And it has its purpose. But it’s not our connection to the supernatural. And it’s this that is significant and edifying. The human spirit, that is also connected to our mind, is our connection to the supernatural. I don’t begrudge your belief that we are connected to Jesus Christ through our heart. It is a Tradition among those who don’t believe that the human spirit is anything more than the mind itself. Consider the common saying in Evangelical Protestantism, “accept Christ into your heart todayâ€. Christ dwells in us, but not just in our heart. That is, in our human spirit to begin with, and eventually in our soul as we are conformed to the image of Christ.

Christ doesn’t dwell in our flesh. I lean toward the opinion that Satan dwells there. Not personally, but his essence dwells there. Imbibed by Adam and Eve when they ate of the fruit of the wrong tree. Which is why the Spirit contends with the flesh. It is a contention for the freedom of our soul. The essence of Satan desires control. The Spirit desires our freedom in Christ. At least, that’s how I see it.


“Thirdly, your statement that "It is not connected to the heart." needs some basis - where did you get this from? I thought the very fact that God writes His laws into our hearts gave some connection between our hearts and His teaching us.â€

That is a good point. But consider that our heart isn’t the only place these laws are written. Further consider how John says that we don’t need anyone to teach us, yet Paul says that there is the gift of teaching. And consider how do the laws get into our hearts in the first place. I believe you will find the answer to your question upon considering these things.


“Fourthly, I was merely quoting from this Scripture -
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
You'll have to make a strong case for this being just a Traditional belief and not the truth.â€

Now I understand where your coming from. See what I said above. Everything in the Bible is the truth, the objective truth. But truth arrived at through Biblical interpretation may or may not be the truth. Generally it is not.

It’s impossible for anyone with a closed or hardened heart to know Jesus Christ and his teaching or to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, let alone experience the reality of which he speaks. The heart is the deepest part of our being (Heb 4:12, 1 Pet 3:4). It is different from the mind (Mt 22:37). And the heart can be effected by sin (Mt 5:28). Only the pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8) and our treasure is in the heart (Mt 6:21). It must be open in order to receive and to share this treasure. The treasure I speak of is not of this earth (Mt 6:19-20). Our treasure is hid in Christ (Col 2:3). “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;†(2 Cor 4:7 NASB)

The difference between the heart and the spirit is seen in that the spirit is our connection to the supernatural. What we receive through the spirit must be received even in the deepest part of our being or the heart, not the mind alone.


“(FC) Jesus fulfills the Law. In Christ is our relationship with the Law. Do you really think that is just an interpretation?

But the question is not - "has Jesus fulfilled the Law", or "Are we, in Christ, related to the Law". Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Scripture states we are not under the law. Now, what law am I not under? That is the question. The moment you answer this question, aren't you interpreting - since there is more than one meaning that could be assigned to the word 'Law' itself?â€

In general, when the Bible refers to the law it is referring to the Law of God given to Israel. It is not referring to any man-made laws or laws of nature.

Scripture states that we aren’t under Law in regards to sin. The Law has much more to it than just the matter of sin. Paul said that the Law reveals sin to us. But he also says that we can’t be Justified by the Law alone. We can’t be Justified by the Law at all “if not†(the literal meaning of what is usually translated as “exceptâ€) through the faith of Christ. (Gal 2:16) Why? Because Jesus Christ did something we could never do. He fulfilled the Law. In Christ, we too have fulfilled the Law in regards to condemnation. But that is only realized in a practical sense as we are conformed to Jesus Christ.

Consider what Paul has been discussing in the last five and a half chapters before he states 6:14. Our condition, Justification, and life in Christ. The essence of the Gospel is that we are Justified in Christ through the grace of God. What Paul states in 6:14 is true, but only as we walk by the Spirit and are conformed to Jesus Christ (Rom 8). Years ago, there was a book that was very popular among certain Evangelical Protestants. It is called the Normal Christian Life, by Watchman Nee. It is a commentary on Romans 6. And people were trying to live according to what it said. Little did they realize that it was incomplete. Nee wrote another book that completed the first book. I can’t remember the title off hand, but it concerned Romans 8. A lot of people became very confused because they were trying to live according to Romans 6:14 under their own power and failing, not realizing that it is impossible even to the strongest willed.

Consider that if interpretations are all we have to go by, we have even less certainty in relation to truth because everyone has an interpretation. Everyone has an idea. And if all we have are interpretations, then even our own belief that we will be saved through Christ is just an interpretation. And once again the Catholics are right in that we really won’t know whether or not we are saved until we are dead. And by that reasoning we may not know anything at all after we’re dead if the Atheists were right all along. We must not, indeed can not, assume that our interpretations are the same as the teaching of Christ through the Spirit. And there is no way to tell if our interpretations of the Bible are subjective or objective truth, as proven beyond a doubt by the denominational nature of Christianity.

You must discern whether or not what I have said reflects reality or is just an interpretation or personal opinion. You must seek the answer from Jesus who is the only and true authority. That is, if his present existence is more than just an interpretation/opinion.


“But most people don’t walk fully by the flesh.
What is it that you mean by "walking by the flesh"? I have already stated my beliefs on this topic in this thread (pg.14).
Also, when you qualify this with "most" people, are you referring to unbelievers also? Are you saying that some unbelievers do not walk by the flesh at times and hence may not sin at those times? I think not, but I wouldn't want to presume.â€

You bring up questions that would take a whole thread to answer adequately.

Paul shows the difference between walking by the flesh and walking by the Spirit in Galatians 5. Before being in Christ, we walked in trespasses and sins. Does everyone you know who is definitely not in Christ walk in trespasses and sins completely? If I believed that, I would be paranoid, I wouldn’t be able to turn my back on anyone, including Christians. Fortunately, there are some very nice people among the Atheists (and Christians) who have integrity. They don’t go around deliberately trying to hurt people by word or action. Rather, they try to help when they can. They are very moral according to their own understanding of morality, which usually coincides with cultural morality. Some of them are even my friends. They don’t walk completely by the flesh. They also walk by their conscience. And Paul refers to such people in Romans 2. But in relation to being made righteous they are as filthy rags. They don’t seek after God. They certainly don’t walk by the Spirit. They walk by their own soul and thus are very soulish and earthbound people. But it is true that because they have the flesh, they sometimes walk by it.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

You said, “But that is what the scripture says happened, except for the blame part. Eve was beguiled through subtlty by the most cunning of God's creatures. Take it easy on our Father Adam. He most likely was wondering why the woman didn't drop dead and he probably felt he could trust the woman who was a piece of himself. I really don't think any body else would have faired any better. So why would you rather condemn than forgive? You are only condemning yourself along with them by doing so. Jesus paid the price and he forgave. He suffered greatly to destroy the works of Satan who is our accuser. Think about that. Is condemnation Satanic or Christlike? Love makes people responsible people.”

The devil didn’t make Eve do anything. She was tricked. But Adam wasn’t. That is what Paul pointed out. And that is why it is through Adam we inherit our sin nature.

I don’t remember condemning anyone. I don’t know what you are referring to.

As far as the rest, I agree. At least I did until I got to your response to Warhorse. Now I’m just confused.

FC

FC, I first and foremost would express to you that for me the issue is of what is true or false. To be precise; If I believe Adam is culpable, as in a malicious intent or perhaps better described as willful and wanton defiance towards God, I would be resentful of Adam and disavow or loathe that he was ever the father of men. If however I believe Adam is culpable because he was naive or too trusting, this brings forth an entirely different spirit pertaining to how I view him. There are two different spirits that are produced by these two differing outlooks. Which one is true? One spirit is of accusation and condemnation and one is of understanding and mercy.

I would beg you and all in this forum for your sincere honesty in this matter in acknowledging the issue and not skirting it, so that I might not be alone in pondering the consequences of our beliefs and all the subsequent actions that will transpire according to what spirits live inside us through what we believe as well as revealing what spirits reside in us according to how we judge.

My point is that anyone who says Adam intentionally sinned says more about them than it does about Adam. Case in point; Note that God said Job was an upright man and Satan said If God took away all He had given him he would curse God. Does this not expose the sentiments of Satan for all to see? Satan said because Job was flesh he would curse God if God would only bring pain upon Job. Does not this show Satan is how he claims Job to be? It is obvious to me Satan has no purity of heart, for he supposes Job doesn't. Darkness does not comprehend Light.

Likewise, the issue of freewill when used to blame or "hold people accountable" so as to condemn, is like Satan being exposed in men. Adam is accountable as are we all but not because we have a freewill to sin or not according to our own discretion. Only the corrupt minds would think sin is even desireable, and desire is the will. It would be like someone saying, "I could rape that little girl over there if I wanted to". What would you think of someone who said that? I would think they are sick or possessed of devils, not that their will was free. So it is I find myself defending Adam's blunder against those who are unwittingly condemning themselves under the guise of acting responsibly.

I hope I've made my point. I have as forthrightly as able tried to. I appreciate your time and attention and your forthright correspondence.