Should we obey church leadership, or the Holy Spirit?

[NewLifeInChrist]

No, this is all predicated upon the idea that we are near-equals with God, able to operate, with His help, on His level. But this is the thinking of the man who has enlarged himself and vastly diminished God. God is "a se," which is to say "non-contingent," existing as a necessity of His own being, dependent upon nothing. He is the uncreated First Cause who has never not existed and will never cease to exist. He has made Reality and sustains it moment by moment by His will and power. Galaxy-devouring black holes, supernovas, vast tracts of empty space so large we cannot comprehend them and every particle constituting every cell in your body God made and causes to continue to exist. He has always known all things and is everywhere present.

What about you and me? Are we omnipotent? No. Are we universe-making beings? No. Have we always known all things? No. Are we without beginning, necessarily-existing beings? No. Are we everywhere present in the universe? No. But this isn't the end of the way in which we are hugely less than God. He is perfect in wisdom, righteousness, justice, mercy and love. We aren't. God is perfect in patience; faithful in ways we can't understand; He cannot lie; His holiness exceeds our understanding. And yet, you think you can be "one" with this Being as Jesus is, who shares an essential, divine nature with God the Father.

The mysteries surrounding us being partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), us being joined to the Lord, and us being one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17) are certainly grand, but I agree with you that this does not make us God or make us gods.

Yes, God the Holy Spirit is within every born-again believer as he was within Jesus and in this way we are connected to God the Father. But being made one with God - united to Him - by the Holy Spirit doesn't make us as God is. As Jesus indicated in the passage above from John 17, our "oneness" with God has to do with being connected to Him, not sharing in His deity. In the Person of the Holy Spirit, the "Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9), we are indwelt by Christ, made a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). But the house in which the President of the USA dwells is not itself the President, only a place he occupies. He may decorate the house in expression of his particular tastes, manifesting himself in the decorative character of his home, but never is the house just as the President is. By virtue of its nature, the house can never be as the President is. So, too, you and I who have been made a "temple" or dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Though we "house" the Holy Spirit, and he manifests himself in us, we don't thereby become in nature the same as he is.

The passage I quoted from John 17 tells us at least one thing about the "oneness" that we have with the Father and the Son. Jesus elaborated on His oneness with the Father when He said, "they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You;" (Jn 17:21) and about us, "that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one" (Jn 17:22–23). So, we can see that our oneness with them is related to the fact that we are all alive together as one in the same body.

And so, if we are "stuffed" spiritually, as you suggest, it is not with the result that we are one in divinity with God, sharing fully in His divine nature, as only Jesus and the Holy Spirit can do.

Right now, at this very moment, each one of us who has been born spiritually is a first-generation offspring of the living God. I say "first-generation" because each one of us is born from God's Spirit directly. I say "offspring" of the living God because "child of God" has inaccurate connotations associated with it today.

Though we are all offspring of God at this very moment, God has not yet revealed what what we will be like when we exit these cloths of skin, except that we will be like Him and will be able to see Him as He is. (1 Jn 3:1-2)

Trying to figure out the boundaries of our new lives in Christ is therefore not possible, though I agree with your assessment that being God's offspring does not make us God nor does it make us gods.

No, it is the God-given means whereby believers can objectively assess the "leading" of God they think they've had. As Paul wrote to Timothy, the Scriptures are entirely sufficient to guide the Christian in all matters of doctrine and practice. This has the effect of constraining believers who want to go off into the tulips, declaring any old thing they like about God and His "leading." It's frustrating for them, of course, to have such limits on shaping God and His will according to their own human preferences and thinking. God can't be the mirror they want Him to be, when His word keeps interfering and making Him Master, instead.

Fortunately, as Scripture indicates, God gave us His Spirit so that we would not be left orphans after Jesus' departure from the earth. Now He lives in our hearts. His enlightenment, revelations, instructions, teachings, warnings, discipline, and comfort come from Him directly. The Bible has not taken His place, but points us to Him. Following it's objective instructions to look to Him should lead us to Him.

In any case, it isn't that I'm reading too much into 2 Timothy 3:16-17 but that you're reading too little into the verses. You would do, since you want to create lots of room for whatever "leading" you want to say you've had.

That just does not make any sense.

Well, now, watch out for those little additions to Scripture that you're making here. "Dwells in me" is not necessarily the same as "lives in my heart." This is, as in points in your earlier posts, an assumption your pressing into the text. In the record of the Gospels, only the Holy Spirit was said to have "come upon" Jesus. Remember the time of Christ's baptism by John? The Holy Spirit descended like a dove upon Christ but the Father spoke from heaven his approval of His Son, Jesus. The account of this instance doesn't say, though, that the Father also descended upon Jesus. And it wouldn't since the Father dwells in heaven. No, only the Holy Spirit was ever upon Jesus and never does Scripture say "in his heart."

No additions here, just understanding what He said.

In any case, as I've already explained, our connection to God the Father and Christ in and through the Person of the Holy Spirit can't be identical to that enjoyed by Christ because we aren't God in the flesh, as Jesus was. This has an important bearing - limits, actually - on what sort of interactions with God we can have with Him. And so, as I pointed out, God has given to us the Bible, full of His wisdom, truth, spiritual principles and examples and commands.

Don't have time for more, at the moment.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

A biblical church should be able to minister to people no matter what challenges have come to them.
Everyone has some struggles. Some more than others.

The title of this thread is highly misleading, church leadership vs spirit leadership is a false dilemma. If Christ is the head and church is the body, as long as the head and the body are one, Christ and his church are one, obedience to church leadership is obedience to Christ, abiding in church leadership is abiding in Christ. Without sound doctrine and wise guidance from church leaders, you'd surely go astray, and there're three kinds of apostasy: the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the rebellion of Korah. The way of Cain is about theological dispute over interpretation of God's word and practice of worship, doing it in man's way instead of God's way; error of Balaam is false doctrine and worldly influence, as Balaam corrupted the Israelites with sexual immorality; the most grievous one is Korah, in a modern setting, this would the kind of people who claim themselves to be "spirit led" and challenge the church's authority, calling church leaders false teachers, as though they are the only true teachers born of Spirit and knowing God's word better than everybody else.

But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. (Jude 1:10-11)

As you said, we're all flawed human beings, we're all sinners fallen short of God's grace, church leaders are not saints, even Moses had disobeyed God by striking the rock for water instead of commanding it as God instructed, but that doesn't justify a Korah rebellion. So I'd conclude that, unless a church has really proven itself of apostasy, following evil spirits, adopting worldly values, bowing down to tyrants and abandoning Christ, we should obey church leadership; even if this is a self-help church that only doles out positive and encouraging messages, never touches sin or teaches prophecy, as long as its message is biblical, we still should obey them, they're still honorable men and women of God, just go get what they lack from elsewhere. However, when a church is openly spreading false doctrines like Balaam and condoning evil, such as the United Methodist church includes LGBTQ into its clergy, or pope Francis promoting climate change, or any church that sides with the pro-Hamas protesters, that's a deal breaker,

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

The title of this thread is highly misleading, church leadership vs spirit leadership is a false dilemma. If Christ is the head and church is the body, as long as the head and the body are one, Christ and his church are one, obedience to church leadership is obedience to Christ, abiding in church leadership is abiding in Christ. Without sound doctrine and wise guidance from church leaders, you'd surely go astray, and there're three kinds of apostasy: the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the rebellion of Korah. The way of Cain is about theological dispute over interpretation of God's word and practice of worship, doing it in man's way instead of God's way; error of Balaam is false doctrine and worldly influence, as Balaam corrupted the Israelites with sexual immorality; the most grievous one is Korah, in a modern setting, this would the kind of people who claim themselves to be "spirit led" and challenge the church's authority, calling church leaders false teachers, as though they are the only true teachers born of Spirit and knowing God's word better than everybody else.

But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. (Jude 1:10-11)

As you said, we're all flawed human beings, we're all sinners fallen short of God's grace, church leaders are not saints, even Moses had disobeyed God by striking the rock for water instead of commanding it as God instructed, but that doesn't justify a Korah rebellion. So I'd conclude that, unless a church has really proven itself of apostasy, following evil spirits, adopting worldly values, bowing down to tyrants and abandoning Christ, we should obey church leadership; even if this is a self-help church that only doles out positive and encouraging messages, never touches sin or teaches prophecy, as long as its message is biblical, we still should obey them, they're still honorable men and women of God, just go get what they lack from elsewhere. However, when a church is openly spreading false doctrines like Balaam and condoning evil, such as the United Methodist church includes LGBTQ into its clergy, or pope Francis promoting climate change, or any church that sides with the pro-Hamas protesters, that's a deal breaker,

When you're a member of a particular church, you need to submit to the leader(s) of the church. If you can't do that, you need to leave. After you leave, you are under no obligation to do what they say. It's just that simple.

 

[Tenchi]

The passage I quoted from John 17 tells us at least one thing about the "oneness" that we have with the Father and the Son. Jesus elaborated on His oneness with the Father when He said, "they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You;" (Jn 17:21) and about us, "that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one" (Jn 17:22–23). So, we can see that our oneness with them is related to the fact that we are all alive together as one in the same body.

John 17:21-23
21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

What does Jesus mean here by "they may all be one"? He says quite clearly: "You, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us..." (vs. 21). And just so no one would mistake his meaning, Jesus repeated what he meant by "one": "I in them and you in me" (vs. 23). "Oneness" with God (a term Jesus doesn't use in the passage), refers, then, to God the Holy Spirit, making of born-again people a "temple," a dwelling place (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19-20; John 14:18-17; 1 John 4:13; Romans 8:9-16, etc.) and in doing so giving to them in himself both God the Father and Jesus the Son with whom the Spirit shares the same divine nature or essence. More than this cannot be legitimately extracted from Jesus's words in John 17.

I agree with you that the Spirit's presence (alone) within us imparts to us new, spiritual life, his life that he exerts to transformative effect upon us, conforming us to the "image of Christ" (Romans 8:29).

Right now, at this very moment, each one of us who has been born spiritually is a first-generation offspring of the living God.

Yes.

"Offspring" can be a misleading term, though. As far as I can recall, the word is used in the New Testament by Paul in Acts in reference to all human beings created by God (Acts 17:28), not merely born-again ADOPTED children of God. The other instance in the NT where "offspring" is used is by Christ in John's Revelation in reference to himself (Revelation 22:16). "Offspring" expresses the idea of like begetting like, of things reproducing according to their kind, but this isn't the case with a born-again child of God who is adopted into His family as a creature quite unlike God, living in rebellion toward Him, in fact, "foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another." (Titus 3:3) God must actually give us a new nature, His life, shared with us in the Person of the Holy Spirit in order that we might know and walk with Him. And so, "offspring," I think, is suggestive of a situation quite unlike the one in which a lost sinner in rebellion toward God is redeemed from themselves and the stain and penalty of their sin, and adopted into His kingdom and family. This is likely why, in the NT, it is not a term ever applied to born-again believers in description of their relationship to God.

Though we are all offspring of God at this very moment, God has not yet revealed what what we will be like when we exit these cloths of skin, except that we will be like Him and will be able to see Him as He is. (1 Jn 3:1-2)

1 John 3:1-2
1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

We'll have glorified bodies as Christ has, eternal, sin-free forms made for occupation of the New Jerusalem in which only righteousness dwells. I know of no place in the NT that indicates that "being like Christ" in the afterlife will constitute more than this.

1 Corinthians 15:52-54
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Trying to figure out the boundaries of our new lives in Christ is therefore not possible, though I agree with your assessment that being God's offspring does not make us God nor does it make us gods.

??? See above.

Fortunately, as Scripture indicates, God gave us His Spirit so that we would not be left orphans after Jesus' departure from the earth. Now He lives in our hearts. His enlightenment, revelations, instructions, teachings, warnings, discipline, and comfort come from Him directly. The Bible has not taken His place, but points us to Him. Following it's objective instructions to look to Him should lead us to Him.

Just to be clear: I have never suggested that the Bible replaces the Holy Spirit in the life of the born-again person. This is your mischaracterization of my remarks.

Yes, the Bible ultimately points us to its divine Author but it also defines the nature and will of that Author, revealing Him, and in so doing constraining what we can assert about Him. Because we have God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, we can't say that God is Allah, or God is Shiva, or God is the Cosmos. Because we have God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, we can't say God dallies sexually with women, producing demi-gods as the mythological Zeus did, or that God lies, or that God can be deceived, or that God is in everything, making rocks, and trees, and rivers objects worthy of worship. While, then, the Bible points us to God, in doing so, it excludes a great many things we might otherwise want to say about God, confining our statements about His nature, and will, and relationship to us.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

When you're a member of a particular church, you need to submit to the leader(s) of the church. If you can't do that, you need to leave. After you leave, you are under no obligation to do what they say. It's just that simple.

Unless this is really an apostate chruch with a false prophet. As I argued in the first page, if you have the Holy Spirit and know your bible, you'd notice it. If you hear some political buzz word in their message that echoes the devils in the worldly institutions, you know, the kind of nonsense from the news which we've been bambarded with 24/7, that's a huge red flag, we have no obligation to do what they say in that case. The false prophey looks like a lamb but speaks like a Satan, if you're in God's flock led by the spirit, you'd know the voice of God and tell it from Satan;s.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Unless this is really an apostate chruch with a false prophet. As I argued in the first page, if you have the Holy Spirit and know your bible, you'd notice it. If you hear some political buzz word in their message that echoes the devils in the worldly institutions, you know, the kind of nonsense from the news which we've been bambarded with 24/7, that's a huge red flag, we have no obligation to do what they say in that case. The false prophey looks like a lamb but speaks like a Satan, if you're in God's flock led by the spirit, you'd know the voice of God and tell it from Satan;s.

I agree with everything you are saying here. I would think it is obvious that if you're in an apostate church, you would choose to leave the church instead of staying in it and bucking its leadership. If that's not possible for some reason, resisting their false doctrine in an effective way would certainly require following the Holy Spirit's guidance.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

John 17:21-23
21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

What does Jesus mean here by "they may all be one"? He says quite clearly: "You, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us..." (vs. 21). And just so no one would mistake his meaning, Jesus repeated what he meant by "one": "I in them and you in me" (vs. 23). "Oneness" with God (a term Jesus doesn't use in the passage), refers, then, to God the Holy Spirit, making of born-again people a "temple," a dwelling place (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19-20; John 14:18-17; 1 John 4:13; Romans 8:9-16, etc.) and in doing so giving to them in himself both God the Father and Jesus the Son with whom the Spirit shares the same divine nature or essence. More than this cannot be legitimately extracted from Jesus's words in John 17.

This could be seen as a reference to us being a "temple" except for the phrase "that they also may be in us" in John 17:21 that you quote above. This is one of many Scriptures that say we are "in Him" just as He is "in us", and they speak to us being intertwined together as an inseperable unit.

"Offspring" can be a misleading term, though. As far as I can recall, the word is used in the New Testament by Paul in Acts in reference to all human beings created by God (Acts 17:28), not merely born-again ADOPTED children of God. The other instance in the NT where "offspring" is used is by Christ in John's Revelation in reference to himself (Revelation 22:16). "Offspring" expresses the idea of like begetting like, of things reproducing according to their kind, but this isn't the case with a born-again child of God who is adopted into His family as a creature quite unlike God, living in rebellion toward Him, in fact, "foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another." (Titus 3:3) God must actually give us a new nature, His life, shared with us in the Person of the Holy Spirit in order that we might know and walk with Him. And so, "offspring," I think, is suggestive of a situation quite unlike the one in which a lost sinner in rebellion toward God is redeemed from themselves and the stain and penalty of their sin, and adopted into His kingdom and family. This is likely why, in the NT, it is not a term ever applied to born-again believers in description of their relationship to God.

I think it is clear in the following verses from the Book of John that us becoming children of God is not just an adoption, but it is literally the result of God giving birth to us:

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:12–13)​

And Jesus also indicated the same thing when He said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (Jn 3:6) Being born of the Spirit is what makes us offspring of God.

Just to be clear: I have never suggested that the Bible replaces the Holy Spirit in the life of the born-again person. This is your mischaracterization of my remarks.

Ok, I will try to be more careful to accurately characterize your remarks.

Yes, the Bible ultimately points us to its divine Author but it also defines the nature and will of that Author, revealing Him, and in so doing constraining what we can assert about Him. Because we have God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, we can't say that God is Allah, or God is Shiva, or God is the Cosmos. Because we have God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, we can't say God dallies sexually with women, producing demi-gods as the mythological Zeus did, or that God lies, or that God can be deceived, or that God is in everything, making rocks, and trees, and rivers objects worthy of worship. While, then, the Bible points us to God, in doing so, it excludes a great many things we might otherwise want to say about God, confining our statements about His nature, and will, and relationship to us.

Way back in the beginning of our conversation, I gave you three examples of God interactively communicating with me... I said God told me not to buy a car, that He told me He wanted me to not be an outreach leader, and that He prepared me ahead of time to deal with a coworker's request. Except for a faulty memory and lack of time, I could have given you a million other examples. Since then, we have been discussing whether or not "this sort of thinking" is exactly the kind of thinking that God intended to create when He came to live in our hearts. Throwing the Bible out there as an alternative to my examples of hearing His voice and doing what He says is at minimum a contradiction because the Bible tells us that He speaks to us, that we hear His voice, and that walking as He directs is the only way to live a succesful Christian life.

 

[Tenchi]

This could be seen as a reference to us being a "temple" except for the phrase "that they also may be in us" in John 17:21 that you quote above. This is one of many Scriptures that say we are "in Him" just as He is "in us", and they speak to us being intertwined together as an inseperable unit.

In what way am I "in Christ"? Well, both Romans 13:14 and Galatians 3:27 tell me that when I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit and by him "baptized" into Christ (Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:3, etc.), I "put on Christ." So, as a born-again believer I am both in Christ and he is, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, in me. I don't know, though, that I would describe this circumstance as being "intertwined together" with God, though I totally agree that, having been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit, I am so inseparably/irreversibly.

I think it is clear in the following verses from the Book of John that us becoming children of God is not just an adoption, but it is literally the result of God giving birth to us:

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:12–13)
And Jesus also indicated the same thing when He said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (Jn 3:6) Being born of the Spirit is what makes us offspring of God.

Doesn't it seem evident that in using the birth metaphor, God is just rendering an otherwise entirely obscure spiritual event in a context we can understand? He is not, in doing so, giving to us a literal explanation of what it is to be "born-again." The only actual birth we know of is entirely biological/physical. Being completely non-physical, our spiritual "birth," then must merely approximate what it is that God does in making us "new creatures in Christ" through the Person of the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, God is not "birthing" us according to kind, as happens physically, which is why we are described as "adopted" into God's family and why we are not called God's "offspring" in Scripture.

In what way, then, am I a "born-again child" of God? It seems to me that what is primarily intended to be conveyed in the birth-metaphor is a new beginning in respect to the saved person's basic nature. Though physical birth marks a new condition outside of its mother in which the newborn now exists, it also marks a separation between baby and mother. In the case of spiritual birth, however, the opposite occurs, a connection is made between the "born-again" person and their holy Maker into whom they move spiritually. This connection confers upon the newly-made child of God a new nature, a spiritual nature, that resides within them in the Person of the Holy Spirit and a resulting new condition of being.

Asserting that one's spiritual "birth" unites one to God on some indefinable, mystical level that "intertwines" them with God (whatever that means) seems to me to go well beyond what Scripture says. Such a union would require a taking on of God's essential nature, which no human, no created being, could possibly do.

Ok, I will try to be more careful to accurately characterize your remarks.

Thanks.

Way back in the beginning of our conversation, I gave you three examples of God interactively communicating with me... I said God told me not to buy a car, that He told me He wanted me to not be an outreach leader, and that He prepared me ahead of time to deal with a coworker's request. Except for a faulty memory and lack of time, I could have given you a million other examples.

Yes, this is the case for many other Christians to whom I've spoken concerning this matter. And when I ask them how they're certain it was God communicating with them, their response always boils down to "I just know." Well, as I pointed out many posts ago, we would not accept this as legitimate grounds for the assertion that there is no God, or that God is Shiva, or that God is the cosmos. Why ought it to stand, then, when a Christian uses it as grounds for their confidence in their belief that God "spoke" to them?

Since then, we have been discussing whether or not "this sort of thinking" is exactly the kind of thinking that God intended to create when He came to live in our hearts.

Actually, I'm more interested in securing an objective, authoritative basis for establishing that God has communicated to us, for grounding the claim that God, rather than one's own Self-talk or some demonic counterfeit of God's "voice," has given direction. I think God's word does exactly this better than any other (always ultimately subjective) alternative does.

Throwing the Bible out there as an alternative to my examples of hearing His voice and doing what He says is at minimum a contradiction because the Bible tells us that He speaks to us, that we hear His voice, and that walking as He directs is the only way to live a succesful Christian life.

Your conclusion in this quotation is a kind of Begging the Question in that it assumes what you're arguing for - like the man who asks a complete stranger, "When did you stop beating your wife?" His question assumes what has not be proved (that the neighbor has a wife and is beating her), just as your statement assumes that by "speaks to us" what the Bible means is "hear God's voice in our heart." This is seriously under contention, as I've been taking pains to show, and so, calling my remarks a "contradiction" can only be applied to your view, not to God's word, from which I've often and carefully referred in giving an objective (and thus more certain) alternative to your very subjective approach to discerning God's leading.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

In what way am I "in Christ"? Well, both Romans 13:14 and Galatians 3:27 tell me that when I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit and by him "baptized" into Christ (Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:3, etc.), I "put on Christ." So, as a born-again believer I am both in Christ and he is, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, in me. I don't know, though, that I would describe this circumstance as being "intertwined together" with God, though I totally agree that, having been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit, I am so inseparably/irreversibly.

At least we have substantial agreement on this point.

Doesn't it seem evident that in using the birth metaphor, God is just rendering an otherwise entirely obscure spiritual event in a context we can understand?

No, it is not a metaphor.

He is not, in doing so, giving to us a literal explanation of what it is to be "born-again."

Yes it is literal.

The only actual birth we know of is entirely biological/physical. Being completely non-physical, our spiritual "birth," then must merely approximate what it is that God does in making us "new creatures in Christ" through the Person of the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, God is not "birthing" us according to kind, as happens physically, which is why we are described as "adopted" into God's family and why we are not called God's "offspring" in Scripture.

The adoption angle concerns God making His enemies His children with full rights. It doesn't supplant our spiritual birth that makes us literally His children.

In what way, then, am I a "born-again child" of God? It seems to me that what is primarily intended to be conveyed in the birth-metaphor is a new beginning in respect to the saved person's basic nature. Though physical birth marks a new condition outside of its mother in which the newborn now exists, it also marks a separation between baby and mother. In the case of spiritual birth, however, the opposite occurs, a connection is made between the "born-again" person and their holy Maker into whom they move spiritually. This connection confers upon the newly-made child of God a new nature, a spiritual nature, that resides within them in the Person of the Holy Spirit and a resulting new condition of being.

Asserting that one's spiritual "birth" unites one to God on some indefinable, mystical level that "intertwines" them with God (whatever that means) seems to me to go well beyond what Scripture says. Such a union would require a taking on of God's essential nature, which no human, no created being, could possibly do.

Our new nature was "created according to God in true righteousness and Holiness" (Eph 4:24) when He gave birth to us by His Spirit. This is what spiritual birth creates, and it is the reason we can say with confidence that we have become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).

Yes, this is the case for many other Christians to whom I've spoken concerning this matter. And when I ask them how they're certain it was God communicating with them, their response always boils down to "I just know." Well, as I pointed out many posts ago, we would not accept this as legitimate grounds for the assertion that there is no God, or that God is Shiva, or that God is the cosmos. Why ought it to stand, then, when a Christian uses it as grounds for their confidence in their belief that God "spoke" to them?

Actually, I'm more interested in securing an objective, authoritative basis for establishing that God has communicated to us, for grounding the claim that God, rather than one's own Self-talk or some demonic counterfeit of God's "voice," has given direction. I think God's word does exactly this better than any other (always ultimately subjective) alternative does.

Your conclusion in this quotation is a kind of Begging the Question in that it assumes what you're arguing for - like the man who asks a complete stranger, "When did you stop beating your wife?" His question assumes what has not be proved (that the neighbor has a wife and is beating her), just as your statement assumes that by "speaks to us" what the Bible means is "hear God's voice in our heart." This is seriously under contention, as I've been taking pains to show, and so, calling my remarks a "contradiction" can only be applied to your view, not to God's word, from which I've often and carefully referred in giving an objective (and thus more certain) alternative to your very subjective approach to discerning God's leading.

Yes, obviously, I am speaking from my point of view. I know you do not agree with me that God speaks to us from inside our hearts in any manner that we can hear, discern, and act upon. And, yes, this is a serious point of contention. And I agree that you have been taking great pains to prove your case. And I believe you when you say you think your point of view is supported by Scripture and mine is not.

But from my point of view, your point of view is not supported by Scripture, but is a contradiction of Scripture. To make your points that God does not speak to us in any manner that we can hear, discern, and act upon, you must redefine the words of Scripture to not mean what they say. When the Bible says, for instance, "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts", you must reimagine what this says in order to say it is not telling us to avoid hardening our hearts in reistance to His voice that we actually hear. The same reimagining must take place to obfuscate dozens of Scriptures I have presented to you that say He speaks to us, we hear Him, and that He expects us to trust what He says and do as He directs.

 

[follower]

"Should we obey church leadership, or the Holy Spirit?"


munch, munch, munch, munch, graze, graze, graze ... ... ... in green pasture ... ... ... sheep contentedly grazing and resting ...

Listening to and following Jesus ..... the Good Shepherd of the sheep ... ...
.... not listening to other voices.