Very enlightening TB... as always there is so
much in your post to chew on. And yes this is how we go away from
focusing on our own ability. Although we find an insurmountable climb to
get to the top of the heights of evil that lurks in our hearts yet...
in Christ we are able to find all the sense of pleasure that we need to
rise above our own limited sight of holistic musing. And since this is a
thread on the vivifying of our tendencies to dullness then let me
describe this transforming experience. We are dealing with this whole
paradigm of being quickened ... made alive... and having a sense of the
power of the resurrection in our understanding of the infusion of life
in this union we have in Christ. In this experience we are aware of the
deepening of the source of this pleasure as we develop a longing for the
living God. Here this musing carries a certain in grafted animation of
our faculties. So then our vision is enlightened and our spiritual
senses are inflamed. This has the effect of this over flow as if the
bowels of compassion were electrifying this pleasure that surges through
our entire being. Now then we build this spiritual fortress by one
precept upon another. The word is alive and powerful and sharper... so
that we are the recipients of this transference of spiritual control... a
union of the eternal connections to everything that exist in this
universe. And here we are drawn out of a contingent weight of self... we
are finding the causal connection in our understanding of the eternal
communication of Christ call to us ... His ability to create from
nothing... and call into existence. Now then... this powerful
communication is our connection to having fellowship with the Spirit
unto the glory of Christ. In this way we are filled with the light of
His glory... it is the vision of the transcendent flow of divine life.
This is why the word is alive. As you know TB this is an extreme
spiritual infusion and it is going to take many post to examine some of
these spiritual paradigms from the drawing out of this deep sense of
spiritual desire. But we are going to continue on this journey in these
depths of experience from the word of the living God.
|
5185
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: The Nature of Vivification
|
on: April 16, 2009, 06:45:14 PM
|
Judging
from the title, Tom, may I assume that this is about how a person is
made alive in Christ by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit? If
so, this would make an interesting topic; it seems to be at the core of
reformation teaching and is the focal point for seemingly endless
discussions and debates about how and when we come to Christ.
Tb go ahead and fire away. I would enjoy your input. I read your honest question to Steve and Pete... it was rite on! Tb... i hope to show the relationship in effects... between the word and the Spirit... and the eternal nature of illumination.
|
5188
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 16, 2009, 05:40:12 PM
|
Tasting .... eating... partaking....
ingesting...desire... longing... understanding.... in grafting....
rejoicing... shouting... singing .. mourning... troubled ... sorrowed...
are all synonyms in scripture for describing a person with human
characteristics. There are these two realities that the christian
experiences as the source of all of his choices. We live in a universe
of pre determined realities. For before the world was created God knew
on an intimate level all the things that make up the reality of living
this world both physical and meta physical. And i guess we can describe
the process of putting these different sins to death...but just having
the single understanding of mortification of sin does not help create
the holistic experience of living as if these different concepts or
synonyms have the color..flavor... and enjoyment of experiencing this
holistic understanding of the illumination of the Spirit. Mortification
of sin is having the proper sorrow over our sin and knowing the danger
of living in the guilt... sorrow and fear experienced in this reality of
feeling the effects of the domination of sin. In this way there is a
need to experience deliverance from sin in the desperate way a person
views this domination of sin. The sting of sin is death... this is the
process of the effects of sin. And i guess that this terribly
distressing side of these different experiences as to the level one
deals with these different sins is part of the characteristics of the
understanding that determines how one will choose the objects that are
designed to meet the desire. Mortification is going down in the
experience of finding the anger... the guilt... the fear and the dread
of sin to face the reality of living in a universe of sin...having the
presence of sin.. and dealing with the effects of sin.So that tasting in
the biblical sense is this experiencing of this level of humility in
having this sorrowful state of mind. Mortification is the
process of exposing the level of depravity to the understanding so that
in gaining a true sense of the evil of sin a person is imbibed with the
level of inward danger that lurks in his whole being. In this way... the
reality of living with all of this potential for failure gives this
taste of the kind of desperate condition that is required in
apprehending the level of the illumination of the reality of Christ
presence by His Spirit.This is developing a proper sorrow in order for a
person to experience a seriousness that is real. For what we think in
our hearts is what we are. What we are determines everything about how
we view this world and all of the circumstances that we are confronted
with. In between the connections to our choices are these five senses
both physical and spiritual in which the experience of peace...
comfort... and the general level of these communications that are
returning to our understanding about the kind of ingraining that we have
processed is this holistic reality of living. We have the potential to
live above this worlds domination.
| 5194
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Seperation encourages divorce
|
on: April 13, 2009, 02:59:51 PM
|
a believer is to dwell with an unbeliever if already married.. because the believer sanctifies the unbeliever.
As
I understand the context of those verses, Paul was teaching that if a
woman becomes a believer, she is not to leave just because her husband
doesn't believe. She's supposed to be submissive and quiet, meaning
she's not supposed to demand he join the church with her or try nagging
him to death to do so. The marriage is still sacred (sanctified) in
God's eyes, so she should not leave the unbeliever. As
you said the wisdom is in applying the scripture to different people in
different situations. I don't think those verses mean that no woman can
leave her husband ever. I think it's sometimes necessary in the hope
of bringing about a change and a renewed relationship. It's nothing to
take lightly, but sometimes a woman may feel she has no other way.
A
person can do any thing they want to do... by any given situation. The
point is that the problems in the marriage are not there to push people
apart but they are there for one reason... to draw them together. The
reason that separation is wrong is because God looks at that as running
from the means he is using to sanctify the person who is struggling and
the person who is struggling because of it. ie separating is running
from Gods discipline. If any one counsels separation other then what we
have already stipulated they are teaching the people to deal with their
problems by running from the context that God has made for them to deal
with their problems.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
5196
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Seperation encourages divorce
|
on: April 13, 2009, 02:36:26 PM
|
I'll have to tell you what that verse meant to me personally.
I
came to a point where I had become super-critical of my husband and my
kids. Everything ticked me off, and I said so, often and loudly. God
showed me that verse one day, and it pierced my heart because I realized
I was a fool--I was tearing down my house with my own hands (or mouth,
in my case). I had to put in the work to rebuild. By God's grace, I
was able to do that.
My husband didn't separate from me over
that, but I can tell you I would have snapped to attention if he told me
I had gotten beyond bearable to live with and something had to change.
I'm thankful God dealt with me before that.
There may not be
"worse situations than adultery and physical abuse", but there are
things a person can do that can equally tear down a home.
You
got to take all of scripture... i mean the proverbs offer advice for
every situation... and the wisdom is applying it in a particular
situation... because there are proverbs that say the opposite of what
the another proverb says about a similar set of circumstances. So wisdom
is applying these scriptures as different for different people and
different at different times and different in each case. But the
scripture gives no authority to any one to separate over things that the
individuals are struggling with in order to force a change. The reason
is that the people are no longer two individuals.. they are one. So that
its not what we think is best ... its what God says is best.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5197
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Seperation encourages divorce
|
on: April 13, 2009, 02:17:44 PM
|
That verse about the chaste attitude has to do with a believing wife married to an unbelieving spouse.
There's
a verse in Proverbs (I'll have to find it) that says: "The wise woman
builds her house, but the foolish woman tears it down with her own
hands."
I can see how you think separation is tearing it down,
and it can be, but I also believe that being quiet and submissive while
your spouse tears down the home would make a woman more of an accomplice
to that destruction. Better that she fights to save her husband and
her home, and separation can be a fight (not a retreat).
When
you say ... tearing down a home...do you mean having a problem with a
sin? I mean... i mean the bible gives the absolute worse circumstance in
the unequally yoked paradigm. Its satan as the father of one person and
God as the father of another. What worse situation are you thinking
about in the tearing down other than adultery and physical abuse? And i thought the the bible says that the presence of the believer sanctifies the marriage rather then the other way around.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5204
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 12, 2009, 03:00:51 PM
|
The
problem i have here in this disagreement about what is meant by the
bread and the wine. In applying logic to this issue... i find that the
proper comparison to calling the bread the actual body of Christ ... or
the tran substantiated elements... is that in order for the bread to
become His body it would need to have His personal attributes in the
elements. My question is.. who would cause these elements to change and
what would be the evidence that they actually are different than they
appear to the human eye. Since there is no proof that they appear
different to the eye.. then what you are describing to me is not a
physical transubstantiation. You are describing a spiritual one.
Heres
where the problem comes in. When you call the bread His actual body ...
then you are saying that His bread body is the same as His personal
body. I mean if it were less than His body then it would have no
physical attributes as a defense that it actually is His body. But the
text says that the bread is His body... not Him offering His personal
body.
The logical comparison to this is that Christ body would need
to be duplicated in order for you to prove that His physical body is
being presented in different places. Now.. if you are saying that the
bread is spiritually Christ body then my logical question is ... where
in scripture does the spirit of Christ... His divine nature mix with His
human nature? The comparison would be that He could learn all truth as a
human being in an instant. Or He would have not suffered the effects of
pain because His perfect power would have been efficient enough to with
hold the pain. But this is not the case when you study scripture. The
divine nature was always separated from His human nature.
Now
then this is very important to being able to discern what reality is....
since He suffered as a man... there is no confusion about this.As God
... He knew all things... was in control of the universe... and was
fully able to meet the requirements of a praise worthy attitude in being
a man. As God He is eternally present... as a man His is only in one
place ... He is presently in heaven. There fore there is no such thing
as Christ physical presence here on earth at this time.
You
make some well reasoned points, MBG. (And i wonder if you consider
this as using spiritual discernment, or some other category of
discernment? But that is the other topic of discussion.) These
points you make are actually the same ones i made in my discussion with
Michael. My first question was this: Can a physical body be in more
than one place at the same time? My second question was like it: Can
one body exist in three different states at the same time? Michael
quoted St. Augustine as saying that, at the last supper, Jesus held His
body in His hands. Moreover, Michael claimed that Jesus' resurrected
body was in heaven at the same moment that Jesus' mortal body was
holding His Eucharistic body. Our conversation, in part, went like this: SOC: So, what you are saying, Michael, is that Jesus was, at the same moment in time, in three places at once? RCM: Yes. Not just me, but the early church fathers. This is what the church has always taught. SOC: And, you are saying something even more fantastic than that, aren't you? RCM: How so? SOC:
You are saying that Jesus not only existed in three different places at
the same time, but also in three different states at the same time. He
was in his mortal body, in his immortal body, and in the Eucharist. RCM: Yes, fantastic, but true. SOC: Or a fantastic fantasy! Please prove to me, Michael, how that can possibly be true. RCM: I will, if you can answer me this. SOC: What? RCM: How is it true that God is one God, and at the same time three persons? SOC: I cannot say how that is true, but i can say that it is true. RCM: How do you know that it is true? SOC: Because that is what the Bible teaches is the truth. RCM:
Then my answer is the same: I cannot say how it is true that Jesus is
the Eucharist. However, I can say that it is true, because that is not
only what Jesus Himself taught, but also what the church has always
taught. ========================================== So, you
see, MBG, how what Michael said could be true, he could not explain.
How that could be a logical contradiction, i could not prove. Perhaps
you can help me see how it is a logical contradiction and impossible?
Let
me reverse this here. There are many places where the scripture uses
the words ... taste .. look... swallow... gaze...etc. A lot of these
verses are talking about salvation. Now then here is the monkey wrench..
are you saying that these verses are teaching that the sacrament is the
continued means of salvation? How do we distinguish between an action
taken with the physical elements or an analogy of faith... of which
Austin would support my position in other scriptures.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5205
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 12, 2009, 02:52:22 PM
|
i
think Micheal would disagree with you about what constitutes orthodoxy
and whether the proper use of the sacraments are prescribed in other
denoms. [/quote]
mybigGod:
You are right, and I said that many denoms would want you to be a
member; what I am saying is that a person can be a member of a church
and participate in the Eucharist/Communion sacrament. The question I was
addressing concerned sacrificing one's marriage over the minor
theological point of when or if the bread and wine becomes the body and
blood of Christ. For example, I do not agree with my church on the
question of infant baptism. But I understand the reasons for infant
baptism and I don't disagree with the intent. (Nor do I want to argue
that here  ) It's
a matter of perspective. It seems to me that when Christians can't find
absolute answers in the Bible then maybe God does not think it all that
important. The purposes of the Eucharist are clear. The implementation
is clear. If you want, you can argue about whether the wine should
contain alcohol or if it must be red; you can argue about leaven in the
bread; you can argue about almost anything. But to break up a marriage
or a church over these points seems to me to be missing the blessings
God intended with the sacrament. I guess, for me, the question
is, "Does this actually affect my salvation?" If 'no' then I agree to
disagree and --I hope-- show the world that Christians really do love
each other.
[/quote] I did not know you that the marriage
issue was being considered. But let me make a point here in this
discussion. For a better reason i do not think that saving a marriage is
the central point here in this disagreement. There is the issue of
doctrine here... that is sorta been locked in the closet and is wanting
to bust out. Its the doctrine of justification. Now the apostle does not
give authority to anyone to conduct a worship that is not prescribed
in scripture. Now for the sake of thinking in a mature way... then i
cannot sit here and cover over major doctrines for the sake of whether
the body of Christ is transubstantiated. The apostle says that if i
preach any other doctrine than the gospel ... then let them be
accursed. And we are not defending any position here... we are arguing
for the faith....the solas... Thats why doctrine is personal... because
if we embrace works in matters of salvation then we are accursed. We
are talking here about the doctrines of grace as they apply to the
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. Whether one believes in
the Eucharist or the reformed position ...or has a position that is in
between is a matter of progressive revelation.... i mean in the case of
Austine .. he did not embrace the doctrine of infusion of the
righteousness of Christ. So that the Eucharist was a matter of being
saved. In other words... if looking on Christ is only the Eucharist
then in order to be saved you must take the bread and body and continue
taking it. I dont think you can have the interpretation anyway you feel
like it in many of these verses. If a person believes that in order
to be saved he must do something to obtain it then he is either
rebelling against the teaching and will end up piercing himself through
with all kinds of doubts or he is not saved at all. I think this is a
matter of growth as well. But at some point the full gospel is to be
embraced. Thats what they presented in acts... the whole message. And if the unbeliever in a marriage wants to leave.. then the apostle says that they are not under obligation at that time.
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment