.
Francisdesales
““Now, if this doesn't fit your "version of Christianity", and you must feel the need to belittle me because I feel called to minister to other Christians, then I have no answer for you, James. I will keep you in my prayers, although no doubt, in your mind, my "human version of Christianity" is a waste of my time...â€â€
It must be understood that natural religion and natural secularism are each the same at their core…natural. Each can be positive or negative. And history points to times of both in each. Natural religion, when it is positive, is at least just as beneficial as is natural secularism. They both help others, often in remarkeable ways, such as caring for the poor and the sick or providing education for those who need it. Or even just sharing of ones person and time in times of another’s emotional need. And if what is natural is sufficient to provide what is positive by way of personal ministries, then what need is there for the supernatural, other than perhaps to appease personal fears of the unknown?
What is natural, be it religious or secular, is not what is the best according to the purpose of God. There is a difference between natural religion and supernatural reality. A very great difference. There is such a difference that Jesus said that the natural will often be at war with the supernatural. And so it has been. To the natural mind, the supernatural is more often than not seen as being either a threat or an opposition. I do not see the natural as being worthless. The natural is just not the best when one sees that which is supernatural.
Your reaction is emotional. I do not belittle you in any way by pointing out the difference between what is natural and what is supernatural. Any more than Paul is belittling you by pointing out the difference between the flesh and the Spirit. As you must realize by now, I do not consider Christianity to be in any way representative of the supernatural or anything that the Biblical writers described. Christianity is nothing more than a humanly derived religion. So by referring to what I believe as “your "version of Christianity" †is belittling to me. And what is worse, you are belittling the God that I believe in. No doubt, now you must claim that we believe in different Gods. And that may be true, if your God is the Roman Catholic Church. If all you have is natural religion, and you can not see the difference between natural religion and the supernatural reality, which is all that I am describing, then your prayers will not do me or anyone else any good at all.
““I have made my point and I think it effectively explains the situation... Unless you think men can cast out demons of their own volition, the verses in question cannot be taken literally. And if you look at the rest of chapter 7, you'll find there is very little to be taken "literally".â€â€
And the fact that you think that Matthew 7 is not to be taken literally, makes my point that you are not seeing the difference between the natural and the supernatural. And that is not surprising since by your own admission, what you believe is through your own personal reasoning. What you are saying about these verses is according to the principles of human interpretation as you understand them.
Jesus was not in the habit of making stuff up, as your claim would imply. And by implying that what he said here was not meant to be taken literally belittles Jesus Christ. I would be more apt to think according to my natural mind that Jesus was not being literal in Matthew 5:27-32. But I believe through the witness of the Spirit that he was being very literal there also, and said what he said to get a point across to the crowd. What he was saying was very important. Important enough that it was a matter of being cast into hell or not. And since he claimed that he only said what his Father told him to say, what he said was very important to the Father as well. He was speaking to a group of people that in the past was more than once called a stiffnecked people. Why? Because they relied on their own natural thinking, rather than the thinking of God. You can take that as personal belittlement if you wish. But that is not the intention.
Ezekiel 18:24, “And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die.â€
If that is true for us today, and if it has any bearing on salvation or how one is to go to the right place when we die, then what is the purpose of Christ? It is all according to how we live anyway. Even the ones who reject Christ, but live a virtuous life according to their own conscience or to a set of virtuous rules, whether they be human rules or the Law that God gave, will not they too be saved? It’s all according to how we live, isn’t it? There is no such thing as being “in Christâ€. There is only believing in Christ, whatever that is supposed to mean. Something philosophical, no doubt. Have you not read that there is a new covenant relationship that came into existence after the first century that replaces the old covenant relationship? Or is that only for the Jews? The new covenant relationship has to do with Christ. Or am I wrong about that too? Perhaps if you reread Ezekiel 18:24 in its context, you will understand it differently. Though I have no choice but to doubt it if your thinking does not change.
““How can Christ "never know someone" who has cast out a demon in the name of Christ??? Please...â€â€
Since Jesus said that it happened, I just assume that he knows what he is talking about. In your own words, “Please...â€
I am not praying for you because I believe that God is already attempting to open your mind by what I am saying. Thus there is nothing more for me to pray for. And that is not meant to be belittling either.
I am here to share what I know and to understand better what other people know. I am not here to belittle anyone. I believe that I can learn from you as well as anyone else. That does not mean that I will automatically agree with what everyone, including you, is claiming. What I believe is what I believe. And that is all that it is. You are reacting to what I have said in a negative way. If you truly wish to use your personal reasoning, then use it here, rather than reacting to me as you always do to the claims of the Protestants. You will learn nothing through reaction. Nor will anyone learn anything from you. Think about what is being said and what you yourself are saying in response. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. No one believes anything for no reason. If your ministry is to help people as you claim, then realize that reactions help no one at all.
JamesG
Francisdesales
““Now, if this doesn't fit your "version of Christianity", and you must feel the need to belittle me because I feel called to minister to other Christians, then I have no answer for you, James. I will keep you in my prayers, although no doubt, in your mind, my "human version of Christianity" is a waste of my time...â€â€
It must be understood that natural religion and natural secularism are each the same at their core…natural. Each can be positive or negative. And history points to times of both in each. Natural religion, when it is positive, is at least just as beneficial as is natural secularism. They both help others, often in remarkeable ways, such as caring for the poor and the sick or providing education for those who need it. Or even just sharing of ones person and time in times of another’s emotional need. And if what is natural is sufficient to provide what is positive by way of personal ministries, then what need is there for the supernatural, other than perhaps to appease personal fears of the unknown?
What is natural, be it religious or secular, is not what is the best according to the purpose of God. There is a difference between natural religion and supernatural reality. A very great difference. There is such a difference that Jesus said that the natural will often be at war with the supernatural. And so it has been. To the natural mind, the supernatural is more often than not seen as being either a threat or an opposition. I do not see the natural as being worthless. The natural is just not the best when one sees that which is supernatural.
Your reaction is emotional. I do not belittle you in any way by pointing out the difference between what is natural and what is supernatural. Any more than Paul is belittling you by pointing out the difference between the flesh and the Spirit. As you must realize by now, I do not consider Christianity to be in any way representative of the supernatural or anything that the Biblical writers described. Christianity is nothing more than a humanly derived religion. So by referring to what I believe as “your "version of Christianity" †is belittling to me. And what is worse, you are belittling the God that I believe in. No doubt, now you must claim that we believe in different Gods. And that may be true, if your God is the Roman Catholic Church. If all you have is natural religion, and you can not see the difference between natural religion and the supernatural reality, which is all that I am describing, then your prayers will not do me or anyone else any good at all.
““I have made my point and I think it effectively explains the situation... Unless you think men can cast out demons of their own volition, the verses in question cannot be taken literally. And if you look at the rest of chapter 7, you'll find there is very little to be taken "literally".â€â€
And the fact that you think that Matthew 7 is not to be taken literally, makes my point that you are not seeing the difference between the natural and the supernatural. And that is not surprising since by your own admission, what you believe is through your own personal reasoning. What you are saying about these verses is according to the principles of human interpretation as you understand them.
Jesus was not in the habit of making stuff up, as your claim would imply. And by implying that what he said here was not meant to be taken literally belittles Jesus Christ. I would be more apt to think according to my natural mind that Jesus was not being literal in Matthew 5:27-32. But I believe through the witness of the Spirit that he was being very literal there also, and said what he said to get a point across to the crowd. What he was saying was very important. Important enough that it was a matter of being cast into hell or not. And since he claimed that he only said what his Father told him to say, what he said was very important to the Father as well. He was speaking to a group of people that in the past was more than once called a stiffnecked people. Why? Because they relied on their own natural thinking, rather than the thinking of God. You can take that as personal belittlement if you wish. But that is not the intention.
Ezekiel 18:24, “And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die.â€
If that is true for us today, and if it has any bearing on salvation or how one is to go to the right place when we die, then what is the purpose of Christ? It is all according to how we live anyway. Even the ones who reject Christ, but live a virtuous life according to their own conscience or to a set of virtuous rules, whether they be human rules or the Law that God gave, will not they too be saved? It’s all according to how we live, isn’t it? There is no such thing as being “in Christâ€. There is only believing in Christ, whatever that is supposed to mean. Something philosophical, no doubt. Have you not read that there is a new covenant relationship that came into existence after the first century that replaces the old covenant relationship? Or is that only for the Jews? The new covenant relationship has to do with Christ. Or am I wrong about that too? Perhaps if you reread Ezekiel 18:24 in its context, you will understand it differently. Though I have no choice but to doubt it if your thinking does not change.
““How can Christ "never know someone" who has cast out a demon in the name of Christ??? Please...â€â€
Since Jesus said that it happened, I just assume that he knows what he is talking about. In your own words, “Please...â€
I am not praying for you because I believe that God is already attempting to open your mind by what I am saying. Thus there is nothing more for me to pray for. And that is not meant to be belittling either.
I am here to share what I know and to understand better what other people know. I am not here to belittle anyone. I believe that I can learn from you as well as anyone else. That does not mean that I will automatically agree with what everyone, including you, is claiming. What I believe is what I believe. And that is all that it is. You are reacting to what I have said in a negative way. If you truly wish to use your personal reasoning, then use it here, rather than reacting to me as you always do to the claims of the Protestants. You will learn nothing through reaction. Nor will anyone learn anything from you. Think about what is being said and what you yourself are saying in response. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. No one believes anything for no reason. If your ministry is to help people as you claim, then realize that reactions help no one at all.
JamesG
