Relationship with Jesus

Originally posted by bbarr
Pace our earlier discussion, what does this mean?

That would be construal (3), "S takes P on faith... "

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

That is, you (S) must first take God's existence (P) on faith in order to have a relationship with him. Without faith in God's existence (P), a relationship is not possible. Therefore, a relationship with God is based on faith.

"...here we have a use of 'faith' that seems to require choice. An agent must choose, perhaps in some limited manner, to deliberate and act as though P was the case. The term "leap of faith" is most clearly an example of this usage..." ~ B. Barr, Thread 96476, page 17.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]It isn't at all like a relationship with them. There's no web of interaction. You talk to God, he talks to God, she talks to God, but that interaction is one-on-one. You can't talk to God and get a response about the 'he' or 'she' and neither can they interact with God and get a response about you.

Statements like these cause me to wonder if yo ...[text shortened]... ntal effect upon unity whatsoever; on the contrary, it promotes unity.[/b]

When Ananias heard God “speak” to him “in a vision”, what exactly does “in a vision” mean?

Did God/the Christ/Jesus continue to speak with Ananias? That is, was this an ongoing relationship, or simply an encounter?

When the “light from heaven flashed around him” as he approached Damascus, and Paul “heard a voice”, what might various recording apparati have picked up (video camera, sound recording, resonance imaging)?

These are not idle questions. They go to the whole notion of experience of the divine, and what that means. If the whole thing takes place within one’s own mind—an inter-communication between the conscious and the unconscious, so to speak—would that invalidate it spiritually? [I would think not.]

How does one know when a mirage is a mirage? Quite frankly, neither the particular content nor the power or vividness of the impression could be taken as conclusive of there really being “an oasis there”. If one had a map that shows there should be an oasis in the area where one thinks one is...? But what if one is lost and doesn’t realize it? What if others also claim the same experience? But haven’t common illusions been documented in such cases?

Well, the analogy only goes so far, and I don’t intend to limit such things to visual constructs. But the question remains: How does one test whether the impression of a presence is real or illusory? What evidence can one draw upon to decide? There are at least two arguments that I would reject (just trying to clear some territory here): (a) pragmatic things such as “feeling really good”, feeling uplifted, or even “placebo” effects, such as “miraculous” healing, based on believing an illusion, etc.; and (b) that the experience is too strong or profound or whatever to be a product of one’s own mind—to me, such an argument smacks of too paltry a notion of the power of the mind.

And the question is not really why or why not or how an individual might convince someone else of the reality of such experiences—some would freely admit that they cannot. The real question is: how do they become convinced themselves? What are the criteria? [Note: the map example above is aimed, in part, at short-circuiting any circular arguments looping between experience confirming texts, and texts confirming experience.]

_______________________________________________

If a child claims an invisible (to us, anyway) friend named Bjorn, we might humor her. If a child claims an invisible (to us, anyway) friend named Jesus, why would we respond any differently? If an adult claims a relationship with an invisible (to us, anyway) friend named Bjorn, we might suggest that she see a therapist. If an adult claims a relationship with an invisible (to us, anyway) friend named Jesus, why should we respond any differently?

In the context of my comments above, I intend those as open questions, not dismissals. What I am really trying to get at is the role of the creative imagination of our mind in such instances. Would our acknowledgement of the power and scope of such imagination invalidate spiritual experiences in which it plays a role? Again, I think not; but I think it does ask of us that we re-evaluate our understanding of such experiences in the light of our own active role.

You ought to know me well enough by now to know that this whole question of our own participation—including imaginative and creative participation—in translating pre-conceptual experience of the pre-conceptual real into any conceptual content lies at the very heart of my own spirituality. This “translation” is often so quick as to be essentially contiguous with the non-conceptual experience; I might call it an immediate, reactive translation. You also know that I think that much religion runs the risk of concept-idolatry.

All of this needs to be read in the context of my prior post here—about com-union—as well. I’m really just slapping down pieces of a jigsaw puzzle here; but, again, you already have so many of those pieces that you have some background on where I’m coming from, as clumsily as I may be laying down the pieces here.

_________________________________________

Ultimately, any religionist (you, me, anybody) who places their faith in the translated conceptual content of any spiritual (mystical) experience—any pre-conceptualized experience of the ineffable, inclusive ground of our being—ends up putting their faith in: themselves. That is, in their own conceptual translation, and/or the conceptual translations recorded by others who have gone before (and who may or may not intend their own conceptualizations to become used that way). And this, it seems to me, is true regardless of the conceptual formulations to which they ultimately adhere—and regardless of how much they protest that their faith is really in Jesus, or Buddha, or Shiva, or who/whatever.

I let my faith (and you know that I use that word in a non-standard fashion) rest in what is prior to conceptualization, formulation, naming, thinking-about and believing-about. All my talk-about it is provisional, whatever religious language I happen to be using at any given time—and I am as willing to use Christic language/symbolism as I am to use Buddhist language/symbolism or (Kashmiri) Shaivite language/symbolism, or . . . My purpose is always to point beyond concept-idolatry or symbol-idolatry or name-idolatry: all religious language (including my own) is either iconographic, pointing beyond itself to the ineffable, or it runs the risk of becoming idolatrous.

Now, those statements are intended as a challenge—as an argument , if you will—not as a dogmatic conclusion. In many ways, however, that challenge has developed out of argument with good minds like your own.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
That would be construal (3), "S takes P on faith... "

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

That is, you (S) must first take God's existence (P) on faith in order to have a relationship with him. Without faith in Go ...[text shortened]... clearly an example of this usage..." ~ B. Barr, Thread 96476, page 17.

So, before I can have a personal relationship with Jesus I must believe both that (a) Jesus is there to have a personal relationship with, and (2) that he will reward me for seeking a personal relationship with him. Is that correct? If so, then are we to read 'believe' in the passage in Hebrews as though it meant 'posit'?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Statements like these cause me to wonder if you have had any real experience being part of the body of Christ.

God knows what I had for breakfast this morning. Ask Him and see if
He responds. Ask Him anything about me: how often I pray and to Whom,
what my opinion on this or that dogmatic issue is, or how deeply I love.
Or, if those are too personal, ask Him about how well I conduct my duties
in my professions (in terms of my intent or actual execution), or whether
I treat my coworkers with respect. Or ask Him if I've been sad lately
because you want to comfort me, or if I have accomplished something
about which I am proud so you can congratulate me, or if I'm confused
about an important issue so you can offer your wisdom and guidance,
or if I have done something about which I am ashamed so you can
guide me back on the path towards righteousness.

In other words, see if you can open that web of interaction with God
that I could with your friends. God knows that He has my explicit permission
to share anything you ask of Him -- nothing is too personal! Let me
know what you find out.

Furthermore, Ananias' conversation with God is a prime example of the back and forth of a (gasp) personal relationship, i.e., God speaks to Ananias, Ananias says something back, and God responds, etc., etc.

As Vistesd said, this is an encounter. And, such visceral encounters with
God are not required elements of faith. Yes, they are recorded to have
happened to believer and nonbeliever alike. However, there is no mention
that a believer can make these encounters transpire, or that such encounters
are hallmarks of a healthy faith (or that their absence marks an impoverished
one).

Do you seriously think that Christ's interaction with any one of his members will have the effect of putting that member out of step with all the others? Not in the slightest! In fact, the opposite.

I was unclear. I think the Biblically absent emphasis of a personal
relationship undermines the efforts towards unity, or 'com-unity' as such.
It starts with I'm special, and Jesus loves me, rather than a recognition
of the Biblical tenets of viewing the body of Christ first, that to identify
members of the body individually is to misconstrue the notion of faith
and faith community.

To be in sync with Christ is to be in sync with the church body as a whole, precisely because Christ is the head of the church body as a whole.

Being in sync with the community is being in sync with Christ, according
to the Bible. Being sync individually with Christ has no place in the Bible.

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
When Ananias heard God “speak” to him “in a vision”, what exactly does “in a vision” mean?

Did God/the Christ/Jesus continue to speak with Ananias? That is, was this an ongoing relationship, or simply an encounter?

When the “light from heaven flashed around him” as he approached Damascus, and Paul “heard a voice”, what might various reco ...[text shortened]... many ways, however, that challenge has developed out of argument with good minds like your own.

When Ananias heard God “speak” to him “in a vision”, what exactly does “in a vision” mean?

Well, the Greek word for "vision" here is orama, which means, "something gazed at, i.e. a spectacle (especially supernatural)" (Strongs #3705). Whatever that vision was exactly, I think, is inconsequential. The important thing to note is that specific information was imparted to Ananias' conscious and rational mind: (1) that the Lord knew Ananias' name and addressed him personally, (2) that the Lord's will was for Ananias was to go to the house where Saul was staying (Straight street, Judas' residence), (3) that this Saul was the man of Tarsus who had persecuted the saints, (4) that Saul has already received a vision that a fellow named, Ananias, was going to lay hands on him and restore his sight, and (5) that this Saul was God's chosen instrument to carry God's name to Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. Whether that information was imparted by a voice (in Saul's case) or a vision, I don't think matters. What matters is that a transfer of information took place.

Did God/the Christ/Jesus continue to speak with Ananias? That is, was this an ongoing relationship, or simply an encounter?

I have no doubt that it was part of an ongoing relationship. Ananias' interaction with God here is typical for a life lived in obedience to the Holy Spirit, e.g., Jesus was driven into the wilderness by the Spirit (Luke 4:1), Jesus was led by the Spirit into the temple as a child to preach (Luke 2:27), Philip was led by the Spirit to witness to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-35), Peter was told by the Spirit to meet the three men whom God had sent (Acts 10:17-20), Paul, Silas, and Timothy were forbidden by the Spirit to preach in Asia (Acts 16:6), etc., etc.

This is the same Spirit whom Jesus said would be given to whomever would believe in him: ""He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:38-39), "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26), "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come" (John 16:13), "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8), "when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say" (Luke 12:11-12).

Paul has spoken at great length about the importance of obedience to the Holy Spirit. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Romans 8:14), and "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9).

So important is a personal relationship with God, a relationship wherein God's instructions are spontaneously discerned and obeyed, that without such a relationship a person cannot be considered to belong to Christ at all! That is, if a person is not led by the Spirit of God, then he is still in his sins: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

How does one test whether the impression of a presence is real or illusory? What evidence can one draw upon to decide?

Trial and error. Maturity as a Christian is directly proportional to how well a person is able to discern what is "of the Lord" and what is not, within the content of one's experience as well as elsewhere.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I have no doubt that it was part of an ongoing relationship.

This is a Biblically unsupported belief. You can believe it, but since it (and anything looking like
it) is absent from the Bible, you can't possibly require that a person of faith adhere to it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
So, before I can have a personal relationship with Jesus I must believe both that (a) Jesus is there to have a personal relationship with, and (2) that he will reward me for seeking a personal relationship with him. Is that correct? If so, then are we to read 'believe' in the passage in Hebrews as though it meant 'posit'?

Sure. Isn't that what you were describing in construal (3)?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Statements like these cause me to wonder if you have had any real experience being part of the body of Christ.

God knows what I had for breakfast this morning. Ask Him and see if
He responds. Ask Him anything about me: how often I pray and to Whom,
what my opinion on this or that dogmatic issue is, or ho
to the Bible. Being sync individually with Christ has no place in the Bible.

Nemesio[/b]

As Vistesd said, this is an encounter. And, such visceral encounters with God are not required elements of faith. Yes, they are recorded to have happened to believer and nonbeliever alike. However, there is no mention that a believer can make these encounters transpire, or that such encounters are hallmarks of a healthy faith (or that their absence marks an impoverished one).

As vistesd also pointed out, there's no telling how we'd interpret what is meant here by a "vision". There's nothing in this passage, outside of the fact that God is doing the speaking, indicating that the mode of communication was something extraordinary. Ananias himself, unlike Saul and most OT prophets who have ever had a run-in with God, didn't give any indication that he was startled by God speaking to him. God said, "Ananias," and Ananias simply replied, "Here I am, Lord." No falling flat on his face as if dead; no crying out, "Have mercy upon me, for I am a sinful man!" Just, "Here I am, Lord." In fact, the only thing he seemed startled about was that he was to go lay hands on the feared Saul of Tarsus at God's request.

The truth is, you have no basis for assuming that Ananias' conversation with God is exceptional, and, contrary to what you assert, there is indeed ample biblical evidence suggesting that consistently being led by the Holy Spirit is an essential characteristic of a child of God. A bright light from heaven may be necessary for a hard case like Saul, but in the life of a typical believer God's direction comes as a "still small voice" (1 Kings 19:12). This may well have been so in Ananias' case.

Mature believers, who have grown to recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and who have been gifted by the Spirit in some special service, certainly can effectively discern the spontaneous commands of the Spirit, and often with remarkable precision (bearing great fruit). At first, the Spirit deals primarily in matters of conscience and conviction of sin, but as a believer matures he or she can be entrusted with more intricate promptings from the Spirit. Therefore, an absence of a conversational back and forth relationship with God doesn't necessarily mark an impoverished faith (i.e., a conversational relationship with God is not necessary for salvation), but it does mark an under-developed life of faith.

"Those who really want to live under God's guidance and who by proper teaching or other special provision made by God become convinced that he will speak and perhaps is speaking to them can proceed to learn through experience the particular quality, spirit and content of God's voice. They will then distinguish and understand the voice of God; their discernment will not be infallible, but they will discern his voice as clearly and with as much accuracy as they discern the voice of any other person with whom they are on intimate terms." ~ Dallas Willard, Hearing God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Sure. Isn't that what you were describing in construal (3)?

Yep, that's what I was describing. Now, I'm curious about the modal clause in your claim; that we must posit these propositions in order to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus. Is this the 'must' of logical necessity? I can't see how it could be, since there is no contradiction in supposing that Jesus just strikes up conversations with some who never posit anything of the like. So, how am I to construe this modal clause?

Originally posted by bbarr
Yep, that's what I was describing. Now, I'm curious about the modal clause in your claim; that we must posit these propositions in order to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus. Is this the 'must' of logical necessity? I can't see how it could be, since there is no contradiction in supposing that Jesus just strikes up conversations with some who never posit anything of the like. So, how am I to construe this modal clause?

Can you give me an example?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Can you give me an example?

An example of what?

Originally posted by bbarr
Yep, that's what I was describing. Now, I'm curious about the modal clause in your claim; that we must posit these propositions in order to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus. Is this the 'must' of logical necessity? I can't see how it could be, since there is no contradiction in supposing that Jesus just strikes up conversations with some who never posit anything of the like. So, how am I to construe this modal clause?

I don't think it matters whether Jesus strikes up a conversation with somebody or not. There are plenty of examples of conversations occurring between Jesus and those who believed that he was possessed by the devil or a fraud.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't think it matters whether Jesus strikes up a conversation with somebody or not.

It does. If the "must" is a matter of logical necessesity, then you are saying that a personal relationship with God cannot occur without faith (that faith is a necessary condition for a personal relationship with God.) This denies the possibility that God can strike up conversations with people of no faith. I expect this might be an unacceptable conclusion for you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It does. If the "must" is a matter of logical necessesity, then you are saying that a personal relationship with God cannot occur without faith (that faith is a necessary condition for a personal relationship with God.) This denies the possibility that God can strike up conversations with people of no faith. I expect this might be an unacceptable conclusion for you.

But this is equivocating with the term, "relationship." Like I said, Christ had conversations with people who believed that he was demon-possessed. But the fact that Jesus is capable of striking up conversations with those without faith doesn't negate the need for faith in order to receive that which God offers, i.e., justification and the gift of his indwelling Spirit. The "relationship" we're talking about here (at least that I am) is an intimate and cooperative relationship with God's Spirit.

Are you arguing that people without faith in God's Word (the Logos) can be justified in God's eyes? Or blessed with his Holy Spirit?