Re:Guided by God

[Oscar]

Jem,

You wrote:

So what I understand some people are saying is that God can intervene in our lives supernaturally, but he does it so rarely that we shouldn't particularly look for it, expect it, or believe for it. And that would seem that our relationship with God and Christ is not really "a personal relationship with Jesus" in that He doesn't really communicate and/or help us on a daily basis similar to the way our closest friends and family do.

We can interpret prayer and its answers very much like Dave's interpretation #1 and #2. We can pray "Give us this day our daily bread," but that is really just God talk because we go to our jobs anyway and so God doesn't really answer that He just wants us to pray it occasionally to remind us to get out the door and go to the job.

Am I getting this?

As Dave's post implied, you don't seem to be "getting it".

What you have written above does not and never has represented what I believe.  I don't think it represents what Joe or Dave believe either.  

In a debate, (which this is not), what you have done is called a "Straw Man" fallacy.  You misrepresent the other guy's position in such a way as to make it easy to attack.

Why do you feel it is necessary to do this?

Here is a better strategy....just point out where the Bible actually teaches the type of mysticism that you seem to advocate.

"a personal relationship with Jesus"

This is a popular phrase that Christians use to illustrate the fact that Christianity is not merely a list of religious rules and regulations.  As far as that goes I think it is legitimate.   We do have a "personal" relationship with Jesus.  He is our High Priest, our Good Shepherd, our Savior, and many other things.  

The way we know the parameters of the relationship is through God's word.  This brings us back to the question of "where does the Bible teach the type of mysticism you advocate?"

Is this it?

It is the same with the kid/parent thing. But let me fling out a verse that I need to tell Tom upfront that I know I am taking totally out of context. "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." Isaiah 54:5

I know, I know, this verse is referring to messiah in the kingdom age and the promise is to Zion. I realize we Christians, contextually, have no encouragment we can pull from this verse, objectively, other than Israel will be saved in the end and have a rather close relationship with God. We can only rejoice with our Jewish brethren on this one.

I also know that thousands of benighted born-agains have subjectively taken this as the level of intimacy they are to have with God once they have been redeemed. Poor souls just don't understand the context.

Jem,  if you wish to believe that the proper way to read your Bible is to pluck verses out of context and assign them whatever meaning you wish to....well, have fun.

George Geftakys certainly had a lot of fun doing this!  That is the problem with it.  If context isn't important, the Bible means whatever we decide it means.   Ever hear of post-modernism?    That is exactly what they say.

The Lord implanted this thought in my head after I read the Wiesers post: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit..." Billy Graham thinks he can talk to God, so did Mother Teresa and Ellizabeth Elliot come to think of it. I think I'll hang with those folks on this one.

Hmmm.  Tom Maddux thinks HE can talk to God.  Does that mean everything I think is automatically correct?  

BTW, your post reminded me of an old joke.  It is a method for getting away with being late to work.

When you come in late, and the boss asks you "why?", you don't answer at first.  You just look down and remain silent for several seconds.  When he asks again, you mutter,

"The voices told me to stay home and clean all the guns."  

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[BeckyW]

As Jem said earlier, she realizes the problem is always with our reception, never God's transmission.
Think of Genesis 24.  The servant on a mission from Abraham to find a bride for Isaac.  How many sincere believers have made all kinds of life decisons based on verses pulled completely out of context in just this one chapter?
Some work out well, some don't.  Peter Jenkins, who wrote Walk Across America got married based on his wife's interpretation of the "Will you go with this man?", same chapter.
I found one for myself way back when we moved into a training home. 'I being in the way the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren', or something like that.  This had absolutely nothing to do with me or our situation, but my magic 8 ball approach to devotional reading, taught to me in the ga. proselytizing/anchors discipleship course, set me up for it.
So Dave, I actually agree with you.  Yes, God speaks.  Sometimes we get it, sometimes we don't.  In a deception shrouded environment like the assembly it was real easy to get it wrong.  And context is vital.
Working on better reception,

Becky

P.S.  I rarely have time to post, but I try to read when I can.  
I appreciate the fact that the bb is still here, confounding that Code of Silence with ongoing conversation.  God bless you all.

[al Hartman]

I often pray at night that God would grant me another day.  I don't know if this type of prayer is necessary.  Is it possible that God may not give me another day to live?

I think about accident victims, and how people say that "God called them home".  Does that imply that God caused the accident, resulting in their death?  I'm really confused...

Eulaha:
Your time on this earth is determined by God Himself. The only person the Bible records as being able to change that was King Hezekiah.
He prayed that God would extend his life and God granted him an additonal fifteen years. Interestingly enough, the case could be made that he was better off without that additional time.
God has determined and knows the exact day of your departure (unless you choose to shorten your life by suicide or dishonoring your parents). If you are living according to His will, your life is absolutely untouchable until He says so.
The key to living effectively in my humble opinion is to realise that our time here is limited, and that our highest aim should be to fulfill all of God's purpose for our existence in the time that He has given!

You are absolutely right to pray about each and every day - it is a precious gift...

So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. Psalm 90:12

p.s. Although God does not cause every accident, the fact that it occurred means it will somehow serve His purpose...if not, He would have prevented it...
[/size]

     ...One of the all-time best and most encouraging posts I can recall.  Thanks, Verne.  And thanks, Eulaha, for posing the question...

al


p.s.-- For my dollar's worth, both the question and the answer were "guided by God."

[vernecarty]

Jem---

That's a very good point. Enough's enough--I get it, I get it.  You're right-- I have had my own kids say "tell that joke again" and then again, and again. Point well taken.

Thanks, Joe

One of the surest signs that the life of God dwells in a soul is its entreatability.
One of the surest signs that a person is a religious hypocrite, devoid of the life of God is their unentreatability.
It has been quite instructive to observe the history and relationships of the BB with a view to this point.
I wonder if any of the men around George ever wondered about this.
I wanted to post this immediately after your response Joe but decided to wait a bit.
What a striking difference to some folk who are so spiritually thick, as to make the moronic and godless public statement that they do not deserve to go to hell because of their choice!
I appreciate your good example my friend.

 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated,  James 3:17

Verne

[editor]

What a striking difference to some folk who are so spiritually thick, as to make the moronic and godless public statement that they do not deserve to go to hell because of their choice!
Verne

So, using the old St. Peter at the gate line, are you saying that the following wouldn't fly?

St. Peter: Why should I let you into heaven?
Brent:Because I chose to ask Jesus to be my Savior.

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

I even have bible verses, like John 1, that say this.

False gospel:

We are saved by grace, through faith, and that of ourselves, it is the choice of every one who believes.

Brent

[vernecarty]

So, using the old St. Peter at the gate line, are you saying that the following wouldn't fly?

St. Peter: Why should I let you into heaven?
Brent:Because I chose to ask Jesus to be my Savior.

That's going to be quite an interesting encounter don't you think?

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

Oh but you forget my friend, you only know this because you understand what sin is!

 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
Proverbs 30:20

I even have bible verses, like John 1, that say this.

False gospel:

We are saved by grace, through faith, and that of ourselves, it is the choice of every one who believes.

Brent

It's  elementary my good man...unless of course you are still dead in your sin.
Will wonders never cease...!  
Verne
p.s talk about building a house on a foundation of rot...I am now starting to better understand a few things....

[Joe Sperling]

Verne---

Thanks for the post. We were speaking about something similar at my HPA meeting the other night. HPA, or Humble People Anonymous, is a group that was formed to help humble people deal with their humbleness. The main problem with the group so far is that no one seems to keep themselves anonymous, wanting to share how their humility problem is greater than the rest. I have the same problem because I am one of the humblest people I know. No one else in the group wants to admit that though.

We have a problem with the chairs too--everyone keeps sawing down the legs so they can sit a bit lower than the person sitting next to them. But besides the chairs and loss of anonymity we are making great strides to solving our "problem".    Thanks again for the post.

--Joe

[vernecarty]

Verne---

Thanks for the post. We were speaking about something similar at my HPA meeting the other night. HPA, or Humble People Anonymous, is a group that was formed to help humble people deal with their humbleness. The main problem with the group so far is that no one seems to keep themselves anonymous, wanting to share how their humility problem is greater than the rest. I have the same problem because I am one of the humblest people I know. No one else in the group wants to admit that though.

We have a problem with the chairs too--everyone keeps sawing down the legs so they can sit a bit lower than the person sitting next to them. But besides the chairs and loss of anonymity we are making great strides to solving our "problem".    Thanks again for the post.

--Joe

You are welcome!
Your most humble (and worthless too) servant  
Verne

[Oscar]

Brent,

You wrote:

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

But neither of them claim that men's free choices "switch on" God's grace.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Brent,

You wrote:

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite Tom.  Classic Reformed Theology does not precisely say that man has not  free will. Rather it speaks to the manner of the excercise of such freedom as he has.
It is manifest that all men are free to excercise the will in the pursuit of evil,  and with the single exception of Christ, indeed have. It is manifest that some men, though unregenerate are free to excercise the will in doing good.
Reformed Theology is very specific in the way it constrains the excercise of man's will viz. its unability to excercise saving faith in Christ apart from the agency and initiative of God Himself. There is a distinction between that and saying that man has absolutely no free will- clearly a false premise.
Verne

[editor]

Brent,

You wrote:

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite Tom.  Classic Reformed Theology does not precisely say that man has not  free will. Rather it speaks to the manner of the excercise of such freedom as he has.
It is manifest that all men are free to excercise the will in the pursuit of evil,  and with the single exception of Christ, indeed have. It is manifest that some men, though unregenerate are free to excercise the will in doing good.
Reformed Theology is very specific in the way it constrains the excercise of man's will viz. its unability to excercise saving faith in Christ apart from the agency and initiative of God Himself. There is a distinction between that and saying that man has absolutely no free will- clearly a false premise.
Verne

Lets say I live in a maximum security prison.  Let's say that I really, really want to get out and go snow skiiing.  It's my will to go skiing.  

However, I am not free.  I can do pushups, sing, etc., but I am not free to do my will.

That's how I view man's will.  We are not able to do many things, especially deeds of righteousness, because we the will is present, but we have trouble performing it for various reasons.

With God, it's different.  Everything He wills, is done.  No exceptions.

Volition and "the will" are not the same things in my book.  All humans have volition, but not all are free.

Tom, I agree with you that Arminians don't teach the light switch thing.  However, much of the word of faith, prosperity gospel stuff borders on it.   I also run into plenty of deeper life folks who are quite confused on it,  what with the way of the cross and so forth.

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

You wrote:

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite Tom.  Classic Reformed Theology does not precisely say that man has not  free will. Rather it speaks to the manner of the excercise of such freedom as he has.
It is manifest that all men are free to excercise the will in the pursuit of evil,  and with the single exception of Christ, indeed have. It is manifest that some men, though unregenerate are free to excercise the will in doing good.
Reformed Theology is very specific in the way it constrains the excercise of man's will viz. its unability to excercise saving faith in Christ apart from the agency and initiative of God Himself. There is a distinction between that and saying that man has absolutely no free will- clearly a false premise.
Verne

Verne,

All of the major reformers, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli denied that man had free will.  In this they were following Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine taught that Adam was free to sin, or not to sin.  Since he chose to sin and fell, he lost the ability to choose not to sin. He could choose which sins to commit, but he couldn't stop sinning.  This became the lot of all his descendents.  So, although choices about which sin could be made, man's will was bound to evil...ie, not really free.

C, and Z did not clearly spell out all their thoughts on the will, but Luther taught the absolute control of God over everything...spelled it out in his book, "The Bondage of the Will."  I read it waaaaaayy back in the sixties and don't remember many details, but I do remember that he taught that we don't have a free will.

After C and Z were gone, Calvin's disciple Beza and his followers developed Reformed theology much farther.  They developed what is known as "Supralapsarianism" or "Double Predestination".  God, they said, predestined some to salvation and some to damnation even before the creation of the world and the fall of Adam.  (In other words, men were condemned to hell prior to even existing, much less sinning.)   Once again, they could exercise some choice in how to live in sin, but could not stop.  That isn't really free will.

Arminius taught that man's will was naturally bound to evil as well, but that since Christ died for the sins of the whole world his grace was available to all men, freeing the will from its irrevocable bondage to evil and enabling men to believe in Christ for salvation.

Now who was right is another issue...but when Reformed theologians speak of free will, they only mean uncoerced.  Sort of like the will is poisoned and can only make evil choices.  Men can decide which lane to drive in on the road to hell.

However, they don't all believe that man's will is free in any sense at all.  Jonathan Edwards taught that there was simply no such thing as free will.  Not even for God!    And there many theistic determinists among Reformed thinkers, R. C. Sproul for example.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Brent,

You wrote:

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite Tom.  Classic Reformed Theology does not precisely say that man has not  free will. Rather it speaks to the manner of the excercise of such freedom as he has.
It is manifest that all men are free to excercise the will in the pursuit of evil,  and with the single exception of Christ, indeed have. It is manifest that some men, though unregenerate are free to excercise the will in doing good.
Reformed Theology is very specific in the way it constrains the excercise of man's will viz. its unability to excercise saving faith in Christ apart from the agency and initiative of God Himself. There is a distinction between that and saying that man has absolutely no free will- clearly a false premise.
Verne

Verne,

All of the major reformers, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli denied that man had free will.  In this they were following Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine taught that Adam was free to sin, or not to sin.  Since he chose to sin and fell, he lost the ability to choose not to sin. He could choose which sins to commit, but he couldn't stop sinning.  This became the lot of all his descendents.  So, although choices about which sin could be made, man's will was bound to evil...ie, not really free.

I think in order to be fair to the sense of what these men taught, one has to understand how the term free will was actually defined.
Does it mean men have no choices?
It clearly does not. All men make many choices daily.
It is therefore clear that Luther's concept of the bondage of the will (which you will recall was in response to Erasmus' treatise on the matter) is limited and specific in its significance.
None of the reformers contend that it is impossible for unregenerate men to make right choices. Clearly unregenerate men do.
There is a remarkable scene in Schindler's List, where Liam Neeson convinces the sadistic and murderous German commander that forgiving a transgression is a greater display of power than killing someone for it. We then see several occasions on which this cold-blooded killer pronounces forgiveness, in circumstances where he previously would have killed without a second thought. That scene was incredible.
So when we speak of freedom or bondage of the will, I think we have to be clear about freedom and bondage with respect to what!?

With regard to the use of my time for example, I can will to be at the communion service at my church every Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. This is a sphere in which I am permitted to excercise the right of choice freely.
To be present, or not to be is entirely my own choice.
I am not free, even as a born-again believer, to will that I never fall prey to carnal affections. It is indeed that recognitiion of the limitation of my own freedom in that sphere, that causes me to understand the Biblical necessity of being filled with the Spirit (literally to continue to be filled!). The indisputable truth of Paul's contentions in Romans 7 regarding the specific sphere of the bondage of our will, that is a willing that eventuates in actual performance of that which is willed, will be affirmed by every Christian who has made a committment to live a holy and devout life before God.
When I hear people talking about their own spiritual perfection and completeness, I know for certain they are unregenerate, and don't the first thing about holiness, which is dependence, not its opposite.
Brent is quite right that for the question of the will's freedom to be properly considered and discussed, the sphere of any such freedom has to be defined.
Verne
p.s I have read both Erasmus and Luther's arguments many times and I always come away with a sense of awe of both of these men....
p.p.s I like to think of the excercise of God's will in terms of His ability to determine outcome.
I remember how astonished I was the first time I understood that you could formulate an equation to perfectly describe any line - provided you were permitted an unlimited number of varaiables!
This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

[Joe Sperling]

Not that this is an important part of the conversation, but regarding the scene in Schindler's List, Ralph Fiennes as the cruel Nazi was going to execute a jewish boy because of the way he was brushing his horse(or something to that effect). Liam Neeson convinces Fiennes that it is a greater power to be able to pardon someone. So Fiennes puts his hand above the boy and says "I pardon you. I pardon you" and lets the boy leave. But by the time the kid gets to the field leading to the barracks Fiennes cannot control himself and picks up a rifle and shoots the boy in the yard. So, even though Fiennes had a "choice", his very character of cruelty overruled it, and he quickly returned to the person he was at heart.

--Joe

[Oscar]

Verne,

This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

Careful my brother!   You are rapidly heading for the shoals of Arminianism!  

It was this very idea that caused the Calvinists to accuse Arminius of being a Jesuit sympathizer.  

Thomas Maddux