Originally posted by TheSkipper
Thank you, your words mean a lot.

Yes, I believe I did get to experience an aspect of what I thought was God that was "unconditionally accepting". You have to understand that I now believe that all those aspects of God that made him real to me at the time were figments of my imagination or tangible manifestations of wishful thinking. In any case, I w ...[text shortened]... that I had imagined them. I simply think their source is my own consciousness and not God's.

Have you done any reading on John Wesley's approach to Grace? and if so, thoughts?

(in particular prevenient grace)

Originally posted by duecer
Have you done any reading on John Wesley's approach to Grace? and if so, thoughts?

(in particular prevenient grace)

There is/was a lot about Wesley I really liked; his devotion to a centrality of scripture was particularly appealing to me. Perhaps not surprisingly, I was considerably less enthusiastic for the level of importance he placed on traditions. He seems to me a man that was an absolute visionary, but very much hampered by the traditions he *must* respect or risk losing his credibility.

I was very pleased by his resistance to Calvinism (a scourge on the Church is ever there was one), which obviously, is where his ideas about prevenient grace come in. As far as what I think about preveninet grace…well, it seems very much in keeping with what the Bible, most notably Jesus, had to say about grace. During my studies I was very fond of the idea that God had been working on my heart long before I had ever began to seek him myself. It gave me comfort to know that I only had to “meet Him halfway”, in a manner of speaking. A very old Methodist hymn sums it up well:

I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek him, seeking me.
It was not I that found, O Savior true;
No, I was found of thee.

What a wonderful sentiment! It so satisfies our human desire for being wanted, for being valuable enough to somebody that they would go to such great lengths to ensure we join them for eternity. The fact that said “somebody” is God, the creator of the universe, just makes it so much more awesome…and humbling.

My only critique of the idea is its reliance on the idea that we can do none of this for ourselves. The suggestion that due to original sin we can’t even want to seek God without God first pushing us to do so does not sit well with me. Sure, it sounds pretty great if you are already a believer, but to a guy like me it could lead one to wonder about the possibility that God really is real but I’m not one of the chosen. I realize that this flies in the face of everything Wesley believed, him having outright rejected such Calvinistic ideas. Still, one has to wonder, particularly when comparing the stories of Epi and myself…maybe he was chosen, and I wasn’t?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Thank you, your words mean a lot.

Yes, I believe I did get to experience an aspect of what I thought was God that was "unconditionally accepting". You have to understand that I now believe that all those aspects of God that made him real to me at the time were figments of my imagination or tangible manifestations of wishful thinking. In any case, I w ...[text shortened]... that I had imagined them. I simply think their source is my own consciousness and not God's.

I'm fascinated by your experience and how you came to draw conclusions from it (or not draw conclusions). It's interesting that we all basically experience the world and then make conclusions about it.

What was it that lead you to have a "hard time believing" that God could be present with you in such a way? I also have had such experiences and ended up speaking in tongues once before I even knew what it was. I had les of a problem believing that this could be God with me but I also am aware of the "consciousness" idea as well.

What lead you to think these experiences were the result of your consciousness and not actually real in some way?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
There is/was a lot about Wesley I really liked; his devotion to a centrality of scripture was particularly appealing to me. Perhaps not surprisingly, I was considerably less enthusiastic for the level of importance he placed on traditions. He seems to me a man that was an absolute visionary, but very much hampered by the traditions he *must* respect or ...[text shortened]... er, particularly when comparing the stories of Epi and myself…maybe he was chosen, and I wasn’t?

My only critique of the idea is its reliance on the idea that we can do none of this for ourselves. The suggestion that due to original sin we can’t even want to seek God without God first pushing us to do so does not sit well with me. Sure, it sounds pretty great if you are already a believer, but to a guy like me it could lead one to wonder about the possibility that God really is real but I’m not one of the chosen.----------Skipper-----------

----------Response-----------

Why did it not sit well with you? I don't understand. Is it something to do with the idea that God chooses some people and not others? (which to me is not true)

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Thank you, your words mean a lot.

Yes, I believe I did get to experience an aspect of what I thought was God that was "unconditionally accepting". You have to understand that I now believe that all those aspects of God that made him real to me at the time were figments of my imagination or tangible manifestations of wishful thinking. In any case, I w ...[text shortened]... that I had imagined them. I simply think their source is my own consciousness and not God's.

In any case, I was years into my study of the Bible before I came to realize that if the Bible were to be believed God is very judgmental and at least by human standards wildly unfair. Until then God, to me, was an incredibly loving/accepting figure whom I could (and did) trust with my life. -------------skipper--------

.....this to me sounds like where it all went 'wrong' for you. I wonder if you allowed Bible study to cloud your vision of God. To me vast tracts of the OT can be written off as Jewish Nationalism really.

My take on what you are saying (for what it's worth) is that God is STILL that incredibly loving/accepting figure that you can trust. He didn't change you did.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In any case, I was years into my study of the Bible before I came to realize that if the Bible were to be believed God is very judgmental and at least by human standards wildly unfair. Until then God, to me, was an incredibly loving/accepting figure whom I could (and did) trust with my life. -------------skipper--------

.....this to me sounds like w STILL that incredibly loving/accepting figure that you can trust. He didn't change you did.

Thanks for your questions KM, while my search may be over in most respects it seems I still love to discuss these issues. I assume I will be endlessly fascinated by God, faith and the people who believe in one or the other (or both) for the rest of my life.

Concerning your questions, maybe it would be helpful if I just cut to the chase. I’m not accusing you of having an agenda, or of trying to trap me in an inconsistency that would explain away all of my concerns…I believe your curiosity to be genuine. However, I do think that in some respects you *must* believe that I did something wrong, erred in some way that leaves me to blame for my lost faith and indemnifies God. I totally understand that, and I even admit you could be correct.

When I finally abandoned my faith I did so with massive amounts of anger and bitterness in my heart. I was absolutely fed up, with the Bible and its puzzles, my fellow Christians and their (what seemed to me at the time) ignorance, even God himself for not “doing something” to pluck me from what I had finally come to believe was my “toilet of incessant inquiry” and saving me from the ultimate inevitability of all toilet dwellers. At the risk of revealing the extent of my own ability to be irrational, I honestly became an atheist because I was mad at God. Crazy, eh?

So yeah, there is certainly a possibility I made a big mistake somewhere along the line. Perhaps creating a false idol for myself with my desire for truth/understanding, or “not seeing the forest for the trees” as they say. Sure, I could have done either of those things or fallen victim to a host of other pitfalls that don’t happen to come to mind at the moment. All I can tell you is that everything I did (up until the end, perhaps) was done with honesty and pure desire. Eventually, I realized I had talked myself right out of believing some aspects of the Bible, I developed a mountainous problem with Paul’s ideas about original sin, for instance. By the time I realized what was happening I had lost confidence in so much of the Bible that I could not turn to it for help. At that point I was struggling to hang on to God, but without the Bible as a foundational source for my understanding of Him I could hardly separate Him from an imaginary friend.

Without some amount of faith in the truth of the Bible, holding on to “The God of the Bible” becomes a pretty lonely and slippery affair. Try for a moment to separate what you know about God through revelation from the Bible, and what you know about God through personal experience. Sure, it doesn’t cause you to stop believing He exists right away, but it can get real difficult to figure out what to do next, and His presence in your life quickly starts to feel like an intimate relationship with a stranger. Once I lost my faith in the Bible, God’s presence was still very familiar to me, but I no longer knew much about who that presence really was…if I’m being honest, I actually grew very fearful of it.

Eventually, it just made more sense to believe that I had been deluding myself than to believe that this wildly faulty magic book had revealed to me a real magic man that we call God. I know that sounds trite, and vaguely insulting, but they were the terms I eventually came to view the Bible and God with.

I have said it a thousand time since…”God help me if I’m wrong!”

EDIT: I will add as an afterthought that I have always found it strange that many Christians insist we cannot find God on our own, "He finds us" they tell me. However, it seems as though I can leave God anytime I want and the same Christians assign all the blame to me.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
There is/was a lot about Wesley I really liked; his devotion to a centrality of scripture was particularly appealing to me. Perhaps not surprisingly, I was considerably less enthusiastic for the level of importance he placed on traditions. He seems to me a man that was an absolute visionary, but very much hampered by the traditions he *must* respect or ...[text shortened]... er, particularly when comparing the stories of Epi and myself…maybe he was chosen, and I wasn’t?

John Wesley was what we would call today: anal retentive, or possibley OCD. It was in his nature to want everything done exactly a certain way (hence the nickname methodist). I agree he emphasized too much in that area.

I took his views on grace a little differently. My interpretation is that prevenient grace is the spark of life, or divine, that rests within us; which allows for communication to exist. I still think the other points you made about grace are valid, but to me this is an important piece of the puzzle. Without it, it really is just another form of Calvinism (a wolf in sheeps clothing)

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Thanks for your questions KM, while my search may be over in most respects it seems I still love to discuss these issues. I assume I will be endlessly fascinated by God, faith and the people who believe in one or the other (or both) for the rest of my life.

Concerning your questions, maybe it would be helpful if I just cut to the chase. I’m not accus ...[text shortened]... s as though I can leave God anytime I want and the same Christians assign all the blame to me.

It's certainly not my intention to lay any "blame" at your door for what happened. That's not what I'm about and it's not what God's about either. It's hard to use language that doesn't sometimes imply some kind of judgement , but that's not a place I'm coming from. I have an agenda to help you see something you may have missed along the way. If I'm wrong and God doesn't exist then it's won't matter anyway. I guess my cards are on the table now.

Things can get slippery and confusing. I have separated out to a certain extent my feelings about the Bible with ideas of God. For example , I actually believe in the concept of original righteousness which has been masked by sin , rather than original sin.

What comes across to me strongly in what you have said is an element of fear or speculation that God is thinking badly of you. I don't think you are making a mistake in being honest with yourself or God , infact I think he's really proud of you and has more respect for you than a lot of "church goers" who are afraid to ask the questions you ask.

My view is that spiritual experience is real and it's telling us something about the universe. God doesn't live in a book , or even in a church. For me it would not matter if they found the bones of Jesus himself , this aspect of existence would be still real.

I sense in your "God help me if I am wrong" a kind of connecting losing your faith with damnation , but I'm not convinced you have really lost your faith , I just think it's evolving or becoming streamlined.

Can I ask why you became fearful of what you thought was God's presence?

Originally posted by Jigtie
Uhm, as interesting as this whole trinity deal might be (evident or not),
has anyone here wondered why God would go through all this
trouble when he could have just popped out of nowhere in human
form with all his alleged powers and say: "Hey, guys! Here I am. I'm
God, and listen... I'm gonna reveal to you all how come I've created you
and wh bible we're reading as the word of God today.

Isn't all this just a little peculiar?

Think of the Trinity as something like the power plant, the cables, and the electrical current.

The three matters are part of one great project. That project is the bring the power of electical energy into your home.

The power plant is the source of the electrical power. The cables are the means to transmit that power across the miles into your home. And the current is the flow of the actual electrical energy. So you have three entitities that work together:

1. The Power Plant = the Source
2. The Cables = the Channel
3. The Current = The Flow

The Source is the Origination.
The Channel is the path or the causeway from the Source to your home. This we can also call the Course.
The current is the impartation, the dispensation, the flow of the electricity from the Source, over the Course, into your home.

Now the analogy is not meant to be perfect. For none is perfect.

But the Father is the source of the Divine Life.
The Son is the Course - the Channel reaching from God to man.
The Holy Spirit is the final REACHING of the Divine Life in a flow, an impartation, a dispensing of Life from the Father, embodied in the Son flowing into the human believers.

These three - Father, Son, Holy Spirit are eternal. These three live in one another. Where one is the other two are. They are distinct but they are not separate. Distinct but not separate. They coinhere one another. They mutually live within one another.


The Father is the source of eternal life. The Son is the embodiment and expression of eternal life. And the Holy Spirit is the transmission of that life from the Source of the Father over the Channel and Course of the Son of God into our beings.


The Project of God is to dispense His life into man that man and God may be united.

Now here is a passage to help see the biblical utterance that gives rise to this analogy. Jesus says

"He [Holy Spirit] will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine and will declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I have said that He [the Holy Spirit] receives of Mine and will declare it to you." (John 17:14,15)

All that the Father has is embodied in the Son. And the Holy Spirit will declare all these riches to the disciples. That is the Holy Spirit is the final stage of God reaching man and flowing what the Father is through the Son into man.

The pupose of the Triune God is to impart and dispense all His riches of divine life into man that God and man may be joined and mingled together as one entity. The Triune God remains the Head of this union. The New Jerusalem as the eternal climax of the Triune God's salvation is the Body of this entity - God dispensed into Man.

You can never separate what the Trinity is from what the Trinity does. What He is as the Three - One God is intrinsically bound up with His operation to convey His divine life into man.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Hmmm...Fascinating. It seems we just switched places. I started out a Christian and eventually convinced myself I was wrong, you started out secular and eventually convinced yourself you were wrong (or, at least, missing something).

So, what are we to make of this? We have both experienced some level of life, approached it honestly and with an open ...[text shortened]... and screaming) from your secular life, but not even answer the door while I knocked incessantly?

Why did God basically pluck you (perhaps kicking and screaming) from your secular life, but not even answer the door while I knocked incessantly?

Basically plucked me, yes, but not wholly - at least it didn't seem so from my perspective. Part of me did not like the cost of discipleship one single bit, that's for sure. But another part of me was drawn like a moth to a flame regardless. I had high expectations of getting to live a life of fellowship with God, of weakness overcome, demons conquered, healing attained, walking in light rather than darkness, knowing care and provision from on high, experiencing what it is to be the apple of God's eye. Christ's sacrifice on the cross made sense to me on some level, as an expression of God's love. I "got it". It's safe to say I found much to desire in the Gospel - nothing I'd ever dreamed possible about life, if it were true. I wanted to believe. If I didn't want it, I never would have kept coming back and insulting the Christians who witnessed to me.

By the time the moment of truth finally arrived, August 2001, I'd already gone through the toughest part of my resistance, i.e., the self-pity, the anger towards God, the righteous indignation, etc. I didn't anticipate, then, how difficult it would be to get the words out of my mouth. I was quite aware that it'd be personally satisfying, on many levels, to back out at the last minute. Like I said, though, another part of me was ready to go straight to Jesus and die with him on that cross and get it over with. It was definitely a powerful moment of anguish. I wasn't thinking about heaven or hell. In the end, I chose God because I wanted his love more than I wanted my self-love. I counted the cost and took the initiative to declare my faith and claim what was mine. If God made the choice for me, I was never conscious at any point of having my free will hijacked.

I didn't have a great conversion experience. I just remember that my uncle and I went to a pizza place to eat shortly afterward and the shock I had at seeing into the heart of the lady at the counter. Fear had ruled the better part of my life and I hadn't realized how it cut me off from others until the Lord took it way. I could see everyday people in all their glory, unselfishly, for the first time. That was an unexpected surprise, to say the least. It was just the first of many gifts the Lord has bestowed upon me since I became his.

I've had moments of doubt since being born again, but they've all been resolved in the exact manner of my first moment of anguish: by counting the cost. The motivation for that choice has always been the love of God and the fellowship with him which I enjoy so much. The greatest moments of doubt I've ever experienced were due to sin. My own moral failures make me want to give up on God more than anything else. I'd rather not have to repent anymore sometimes, and just throw off the yoke of righteousness for good. At those moments doubts grow large and appealing. It's just so painful to drag my sorry ass back to the foot of the cross time and time again. Each time I count the cost and eventually make my way back to God's arms. It's definitely a battle.

Originally posted by jaywill
Think of the Trinity as something like the power plant, the cables, and the electrical current.

The three matters are part of one great project. That project is the bring the power of electical energy into your home.

The power plant is the source of the electrical power. The cables are the means to transmit that power across the miles into your home ...[text shortened]... ee - One God is intrinsically bound up with His operation to convey His divine life into man.

What an absolutely crystal clear explanation.
Christ and Paul were clueless about this whole Trinity doctrine.
They are not half as eloquent as you are.

Originally posted by Rajk999
What an absolutely crystal clear explanation.
Christ and Paul were clueless about this whole Trinity doctrine.
They are not half as eloquent as you are.

==================================
What an absolutely crystal clear explanation.
=====================================

Thankyou. I think it might render some help to you if you pray over it.

========================================
Christ and Paul were clueless about this whole Trinity doctrine.
===========================================

What Paul wrote about was the experience and enjoyment of the Trinity more than a doctrinal definition.

Though your intention is a sneaky left handed compliment (not genuine) I am confident that I can back up what I wrote with both the writings Paul and the recorded words of Christ.

For brevity's sake I only included limited supporting passages, which I notice you did not or could not refute.

=============================
They are not half as eloquent as you are.
===============================

Actually, I could never improve upon the utterance given to the Apostle Paul on the matter of the Trinity. For example:

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor. 13:14)


The grace of Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is not that people can have a mind boggling doctrine about the trinity but that they may have the subjective experience and enjoyment of the Trinity.

How elequent this is. That is to simultaneously enjoy the empowering grace of the Second of the Triune God with the love of the First of the Triune God in the sweet fellowship of the Third of the Triune God.

"The grace of Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. "

Here is another utterance of Jesus which is also very clear about the Three - One God:

"Go therefore and disciple all nations, baptising them into the NAME [my emphasis] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)

This too is more expeciencal than doctrinal. The disciples are to plunge people " into the name" (singular name, not names) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did not say the three "names". He only mentioned singular "name". The name is actually - Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

And of course Christ was not simply discribing a ritual or a formule to pronounce at ceremonies. Baptizing into the one name means immersing people into the living Person of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

Why are you acting dense? You are the one who seems clueless. All that the Son has is of the Father. And the Holy Spirit is the impartation of all of these riches to the disciples. How else would you interpret these clear words of Jesus:

"He [ the Holy Spirit ] will receive of Mine and will declare it to you.

All that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I have said that He receives of MIne and will declare it to you." (John 16:14,15)


My little analogy, which you found praise worthy, was only a symbolic word picture to discribe what Jesus Christ Himself said here. The riches of the Father are with Him, the Son. And the Holy Spirit will declare these riches of the Father , embodied in and belonging to the Son, into the disciples.

So why are you pretending that I am saying something that CHrist and Paul His apostle did not themselves teach?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You have a Bible reference for this?

Rajk999,

You ask for a reference which says that denying Jesus His place in the Godhead is a doctrine of demons?

Let's see what we can do for you. Maybe we can get pretty close if not right on.

" Who is the liar if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22,23)

Some facts need attention:

1.) It is the liar who denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One of God.

Concerning liars, Jesus said that Satan the Devil is the father of liars (John 8:44).

Would this not make the one denying that Jesus is the Christ a companion of Satan carrying out the lying of Satan for the Satanic purpose? I think so. And I think that is as bad or worse than being related to demons.

2.) Denying that Christ is denying that God became a man - Christ. For the prophecy of Isaiah was that the child born would be called The Mighty God and the Son given would be called Eternal Father.

There should be little doubt that the child born and the Son given in Isaiah 9:6 is the particular Person specially anointed and commissioned by God - "the govenrment shall be on His shoulder"

To deny this particular Son is to deny His place in the Godhead then. Of course the Son is called the Eternal FAther because He is the incarnation of God. He is God become a man.

3.) To deny the Christ in John's explanation is the same as denying the Father and the Son.

"This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son"

To deny Jesus is the Christ equals to deny the Father and the Son. That certainly is to deny not only the Son His place in the Godhead but to deny the Father His place also. He who denies that Jesus is the Christ denies "the Father and the Son".

Such a one is described as an antichrist or a part of the whole operation of antichrist. Calling someone an antichrist is coming very close to calling him demon led. For we see that out of the mouth of the final antichrist comes demons like frogs:

"And I saw out of the mouth of the dragon [Satan] and out of the mouth of the beast [the Antichrist] and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits as frogs; For they are spirits of demons ..." (Rev. 16:13,14a)

The symbol of frog like demons coming out of the mouth of Satan, his antichrist, and the false prophet mean that their words and teaching are demon inspired. Spiritually, they are related to unclean spirits of the demonic.

So to be an antichrist, denying the Father and the Son is likely to be inspired teachings of demons - unclean spirits utlizing the mouth of the "liar". This liar is Satan stooge to assist in the Satanic opposition against the Triune God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.


3.) Demons can be cast out. But more serious is that the one denying the Son of God does not have God:

"Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also."

The plan interpretation is that to deny Jesus is the Son of God is to not have God period. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is to have the Father and the Son. That is to have God and the Son of God.

This is because God is in the Son and the Son is in God. The Father is in the Son. So to possess the Son is to possess the Father also. To deny the Son is to not have God at all.

Demon influence can be dealt with. And not possessing the Father or the Son can also be dealt with by repentence and confession of Christ and His right place in the Godhead.

Originally posted by jaywill
Think of the Trinity as something like the power plant, the cables, and the electrical current.

Are you implying that God almighty runs on some kind of fuel? 'Cause I
haven't heard of a single power plant yet that didn't require fuel? 😛

Jokes aside, you didn't answer my question. Why would God go through
all this trouble just to convey a simple message to human kind? Isn't it,
honestly, more likely that Jesus is not God at all, but a human who
thought he had contact with God?

And I simply love the example you pull out of your hat in another post,
about how if you deny Jesus Christ you are an Anti-Christ. While
perfectly true of course, the meaning of Anti-Christ here is someone in
support of some ridiculous demon living in dungeons with fires and
torture all over the place. Beautiful. Cover all angles so to speak. Either
you're with us, or you're the most despicable form of human there can
ever be. When those scripts were written they knew what they were
doing, and when the bible was assembled?..

The hard part is convincing people that the bible is in fact the truth.
Historically, this was done through force and punishments, but how on
earth can it be done now I wonder?

No I think God's gonna have to step down on earth and show us his
powers, and maybe then I'll believe this stuff. Then again, I'll probably
just take him for an advanced alien lifeform, but if he's good to us I
might let it pass. Yep, I'm big that way. 😏