Originally posted by epiphinehas====================================
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 ...[text shortened]... rd (the Logos) can be justified in God's eyes? Or blessed with his Holy Spirit?
The "relationship" we're talking about here (at least that I am) is an intimate and cooperative relationship with God's Spirit.
=========================================
Well said. We Christians are talking about a mutual relationship, for the most part.
Originally posted by jaywillI like your style, Jesus is The King of kings and the Lord of lords.
[b]"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
This means that the human spirit and the Divine Spirit which is the Lord become one united and blended spirit. That is a very close relationship.
" ... Christ in you the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27)
The hope of the Christ of the splendid radiant expression of the divine i ...[text shortened]... ible. Let's see if he will acknowledge his mistake or try to vindicate it.[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehas
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.
Nothing, except that there is no mention of any other communication! Furthermore, it's not
communication with Jesus. There are examples of dialogues between God and the prophets
and Hebrew Fathers in the Hebrew Scriptures (like between Abraham and God, or Jonah and God).
This follows that model. They occur as needed, and it is God who decides they are necessary.
Your conclusion that this was part of some long, ongoing dialogue is an inference. Why do
you make it? Is there any recorded dialogue from the NT period? Is there a single one in all
of the Bible in which God is not issuing a command?
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.
Being 'led by the Holy Spirit' is not having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Being
guided by the laws of the country is not having a relationship with the President of the United
States. Your passage on 'hearing God,' again, is all the result of 19th-century theology, reactionary
stuff against the mounting ideas that God is not active in the world, and having no historical
basis in Christianity. It's secret-decoder theology -- if you just learn to listen, you will hear
God, and then you will have a relationship. How about a single passage from the NT which
indicates that a post-Resurrection Jesus wants you to have a literal relationship with Him?
You see, The reason you keep equivocating with the definition and support for such a personal
relationship, rather than just shutting me up with a passage from Scripture, is precisely because
such a passage supporting this theology does not exist.
Further, while Jaywill can effortlessly provide a list of NT-period Church Fathers, none of them
refer to such a personal relationship (otherwise those passages of those extra-Biblical documents
would have been shoved in my face, too).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioBeing 'led by the Holy Spirit' is not having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Being
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]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.
Nothing, except that there is no mention of any o those extra-Biblical documents
would have been shoved in my face, too).
Nemesio[/b]
guided by the laws of the country is not having a relationship with the President of the United
States.
You are equating being led by the Holy Spirit with being guided by the law? Is it the law which drove Jesus into the wilderness in Luke 4:1? Did the law lead Phillip to witness to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-35? Was it the law that said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2)? If a Christian is supposed to be guided by the law, then why did Paul say, "My brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God" (Romans 7:4)? How can a man who is "dead" to the law henceforth be "guided" by it? I'm afraid your analogy is wildly inaccurate.
Your passage on 'hearing God,' again, is all the result of 19th-century theology, reactionary
stuff against the mounting ideas that God is not active in the world, and having no historical
basis in Christianity.
How can "hearing God" be only a 19th-century theology? Didn't the early Christians understand that Jesus is omnipresent (Matthew 18:20)? Didn't the early Christians understand that Jesus was omniscient (Colossians 2:4)? If so, then what would keep them from talking to God with the full assurance that he hears them? And if he hears them, would he be unable to guide them or communicate with them in return?
Scripture has a great deal to say about how God guides his children; he does so through his Holy Spirit.
Through the Holy Spirit, God (1) teaches (John 14:26), (2) comforts (Acts 9:31), (3) helps in weakness (Romans 8:26), (4) convicts (john 16:8-11), (4) regenerates (John 3:3,5), (5) indwells (Romans 8:11), (6) empowers (Micah 3;8), (7) bears fruit (Galatians 5:22-23), (8) gives gifts (1 Corinthians 12:3-11), (9) gives joy (Romans 14:17), (10) gives discernment (1 Corinthians 2:10-16; 1 John 4:1-6), (11) helps (John 14:16-26), (12) guides (John 16:13), (13) illuminates the mind (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; Ephesians 1:16-17), and (14) reveals the things of God (Isaiah 40;13-14; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 13).
**********
In case you plan on making the argument that the Holy Spirit is not Jesus (and therefore a relationship with the Holy Spirit is not a relationship with Jesus), then I'd direct you to these passages showing that Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the same substance as the Father:
(1) "At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matthew 10:19-20).
(2) "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Romans 8:9)
(3) "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father"" (Galatians 4:6).
**********
Hearing God and thereby being guided by him is absolute not a product of 19th-century theology, reactionary or otherwise. There is ample proof from the early church to the contrary:
(1) "I received no report from any man. Rather, the Spirit proclaimed these words: "Do nothing without the bishop. Keep your bodies as the temples of God. Love unity. Avoid divisions. Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father." ~ Ignatius (c. 105), 1.83,84.
(2) "Now speak with God; then let God speak with you. Let Him instruct you in His teachings, let Him direct you." ~ Cyprian (c. 250), 5.279, 280.
(3) "By the kindness of the Lord instructing me, I am very often instigated and warned." ~ Cyprian (c. 250), 5.347.
(4) "After the lapse of four days, God gave me instructions to leave. And He opened the way for me." ~ Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262), 6.104.
(5) "For it was incumbent upon [Jesus] the Mediator between God and men to bring both parties to friendship and harmony, through His relationship to both." ~ Irenaeus (c. 180), 1.448.
(6) "God exercises a providence over all things. Therefore, He also gives counsel. When giving counsel, He is present with those who attend to moral discipline. It follows, of course, that the subjects who are watched over and governed should be acquainted with their ruler." ~ Irenaeus (c. 180), 1.459.
You see, The reason you keep equivocating with the definition and support for such a personal
relationship, rather than just shutting me up with a passage from Scripture, is precisely because
such a passage supporting this theology does not exist.
Here is one such passage from scripture:
"...that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).
Fellowship:
1. the condition or relation of being a fellow
2. friendly relationship; companionship: the fellowship of father and son.
3. community of interest, feeling, etc.
4. communion, as between members of the same church.
5. friendliness.
6. an association of persons having similar tastes, interests, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fellowship
Originally posted by epiphinehas
I can't tell if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if you misunderstood me.
I'm afraid your analogy is wildly inaccurate.
The urging of the Spirit is not a relationship. A relationship has many component parts, one of
which might have an urging element to it, as when a teacher urges you to do homework, or a
friend urges you to reconcile with your brother. But, again, it's a one-way thing with the Spirit
(and, again, the Spirit is not Jesus, a point you neglected); you can't urge the Spirit in return.
Further, the as the Spirit acts as a guide or advocate there is no other elements that a relationship
does have (reciprocity being only one of those elements).
How can "hearing God" be only a 19th-century theology? Didn't the early Christians understand that Jesus is omnipresent (Matthew 18:20)? Didn't the early Christians understand that Jesus was omniscient (Colossians 2:4)? If so, then what would keep them from talking to God with the full assurance that he hears them? And if he hears them, would he be unable to guide them or communicate with them in return?
The question is how Jesus is present. He St Paul didn't suggest that Jesus was bodily
present, or that the presence He had was like unto being bodily present. No, St Paul specifically
says that Jesus is in the hearts of believers, that being in communion with Christ is about having
the love of Christ in your hearts and lived out in lives.
And, you keep asking questions like 'what stops God from....' And, as I said, I'm not claiming
that it's impossible for God to communicate in the fashion described, but that such communication
is not an article of faith for believers. A believer need not ever hear God in the fashion described
in the NT in order to be a believer. And, more relevantly, a believer never need to form a
so-called 'relationship' with Jesus in order to be a believer. Jesus doesn't speak of having
such a relationship, and neither do the NT writers.
Scripture has a great deal to say about how God guides his children; he does so through his Holy Spirit.
Yes: guides, influences, urges, drives. This sort of relation does not make a relationship.
Through the Holy Spirit, God...etc
Yes. So?
In case you plan on making the argument that the Holy Spirit is not Jesus (and therefore a relationship with the Holy Spirit is not a relationship with Jesus), then I'd direct you to these passages showing that Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the same substance as the Father
(1) "At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matthew 10:19-20).
Again, the word 'spirit' is one of those tricky words that by capitalizing you turn a noun into a
proper noun. This passage (capitalization notwithstanding) is using the word spirit to indicate
the 'nature of the Father.'
"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Romans 8:9)
Again, you can capitalize something that doesn't have capitalization in the original and change
the meaning. And, if you follow Romans beyond that point rather than cherry picking Scripture,
you'll see that St Paul elaborates for the next 30 verses on the idea. Given that St Paul is a
careful writer, can you account for the absence of the verse that says, 'And the Spirit of God
brings us into a relationship with Jesus' or 'Through the Spirit of Christ, we have a personal
relationship with Him?' Instead, we see that having the first fruits of that spirit -- which
makes us God's adopted children whose love can never be lost -- inspires us to 'love what is
genuine, hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good, love one another with mutual affection,
outdo one another in showing honor, not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord, rejoice
in hope, persevere in prayer, contribute to the needs of the saints, extend hospitality to strangers,
bless those who persecute you, rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep,
live in harmony with one another, do not be haughty, associate with the lowly, do not claim to
be wise, do not repay evil with evil, take thought for what is noble, live peaceably with all,
never avenge yourselves, feed your hungry enemy, slake the thirst of your enemy, and overcome
evil with good.' (paraphrased Romans 12:9-21) These are the things that the Spirit of God inspires.
Conspicuously absent from the long list: a relationship with Jesus.
If I were to debate that 'feeding the hungry' were not integral to being a believer, then you
could cite this passage and I would be immediately silenced.
I debate 'personal relationship with Jesus,' but you somehow, all you can cite is that God
occasionally talks to individuals, largely to issue commands and that the Spirit of God urges
people to certain courses of action.
(3) "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father"" (Galatians 4:6).
Ditto above. Note Galatians 5:16-26. Live by the Spirit...and do not gratify the desires of the
flesh, for what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed
to the flesh...the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry,
sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness,
carousing, and things like these...by contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Again, conspicuously absent
is a 'personal relationship with Jesus.'
Now, if I were to be arguing that to be a believer, one must be a fornicator, then you would
simply have to cite this passage (or a few others like it) and I would be silenced.
St Paul is prone to long-windedness by our standards (it was a stylistic aspect of writing back
then), so he repetitiously elaborates in detail what it means to have the 'Spirit of God,' or to
be a believer. Yet, we see nothing regarding a 'personal relationship.'
(1) "I received no report from any man. Rather, the Spirit proclaimed these words: "Do nothing without the bishop. Keep your bodies as the temples of God. Love unity. Avoid divisions. Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father." ~ Ignatius (c. 105), 1.83,84.
It would be helpful for me to have citations for these, since I like to observe context and
often turn to the original language for clarification. But let's deal with these as they appear:
First, it's clear that St Ignatius distinguishes between Jesus and God. We see that the Spirit
has guided him (no theological argument there). He speaks to his followers to be of one
collective mind and to be followers of Jesus as Jesus followed the Father.
No mention of having a personal relationship with Jesus.
(2) "Now speak with God; then let God speak with you. Let Him instruct you in His teachings, let Him direct you." ~ Cyprian (c. 250), 5.279, 280.
This has more of a OT bent to it: petition God and He will answer your prayers, give you
instruction, and guide you. This is not a relationship as you have with anyone else, nor is it
a personal relationship with Jesus.
(3) "By the kindness of the Lord instructing me, I am very often instigated and warned." ~ Cyprian (c. 250), 5.347.
Ditto above.
(4) "After the lapse of four days, God gave me instructions to leave. And He opened the way for me." ~ Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262), 6.104.
This is a lot like the Acts passage, where God gives specific instructions. It doesn't even appear
to involve a dialogue. Again, no personal relationship with Jesus.
(5) "For it was incumbent upon [Jesus] the Mediator between God and men to bring both parties to friendship and harmony, through His relationship to both." ~ Irenaeus (c. 180), 1.448.
First, let's observe that, like the author of the Pastoral Epistles, St Irenaeus does not view Jesus
as God, but as distinct from God. As best as I can tell, he acknowledges the special nature of
Jesus and the tremendous significance of the incarnation (the 'infleshing' of the Word [Logos]
of God into a man), but that is not equivalent to God. You have only included part of the
passage, which I will give in its entirety (which comes from his 'Against Heresies' Chapter 18,
paragraph 7):
For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both,
to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to
man.
This relationship was the corporal and temporal relationship while Jesus walked on the earth,
one I don't deny. St Iraneaus is saying that, through the actions and teachings of the Son of
God, believers have access to becoming adopted by God, to become sons of God and enter into
communion with Him. Again, the emphasis is on the corporate nature of belief (communion)
and not a personal one. And, again, there is no mention of a personal relationship between
current-day (2nd-century) believers and Jesus.
(continued)
(6) "God exercises a providence over all things. Therefore, He also gives counsel. When giving counsel, He is present with those who attend to moral discipline. It follows, of course, that the subjects who are watched over and governed should be acquainted with their ruler." ~ Irenaeus (c. 180), 1.459.
Again, St Irenaeus views the experience as God's offering instruction from on high, not in
the context of a dialogue. Being acquainted with God doesn't so much suggest dialogue as it
does familiarity with Scripture, given his track record, being the first to really articulate the idea
that there were four canonical Gospels and the importance of the writings of St Paul. Without
context, we cannot be sure the nature of his comment.
Here is one such passage from scripture:
"...that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).
The word 'with' is a tricky word. I don't know what your familiarity is with other languages,
but invariably the prepositions are the most awkward to translate and, through such prepositions,
many odd idiomatic phrases derive which have no literal equivalent in other languages.
In any event, St John is prolific in his insistence of fellowship with the community. He uses
the word 'we' and 'us' and 'our' with deadly consistency. He doesn't speak of 'his personal
relationship with God' but with how the community, in fellowship, relates to the Divine.
You'll notice that in this passage, that St John isn't speaking of having a fellowship with God,
but that his community and the recipients of the letter might have fellowship with each other
through/with/by God and God's Son. He does refer to fellowship with God two verses later,
but in the context of doing so in darkness; his antithesis to this is walking in the light, being
in fellowship with each other and being cleansed Christ's blood.
That is he places in opposition the notions of 'darkness, fellowship with God, and sin' with
'light, fellowship with each other [in God], and forgiveness. This is very, very telling. Given his
clear emphasis on community (and communion), the idea that St John would espouse having
a personal relationship with God as a primary element of belief is just absurd.
Pursuant to the idea that relationships are invariably intertwined and interrelated, did you ask
God something about me that we can use as evidence towards the idea that a supposed
personal relationship with God is one that exists? I gave God permission to reveal anything to
you, trivial or significant. Ask Him how well (or not) I played today. Or what hymns I selected,
or how my cantors did, or which choir members joined or quit. Or what I had for lunch, or
what I'm going to do with the rest of my day.
Anything at all to provide me with some evidence that my life with God is intertwined with
yours.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe urging of the Spirit is not a relationship.
Originally posted by epiphinehas
I can't tell if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if you misunderstood me.
[b]I'm afraid your analogy is wildly inaccurate.
The urging of the Spirit is not a relationship. A relationship has many component parts, one of
which might have an urging element to it, as when a teacher urges you to do ...[text shortened]... s and Jesus.
(continued)[/b]
A relationship is a "connection, association, or involvement."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relationship
The Holy Spirit teaches, guides, helps, gives discernment, empowers, and illuminates the mind of a believer. It would be right to characterize his ministry primarily as a relationship (i.e., a connection, association, or involvement) with the believer. And how else could this relationship be described other than 'personal', seeing that it is a relationship between persons?
But, again, it's a one-way thing with the Spirit;
you can't urge the Spirit in return.
How is it a "one-way" thing? Isn't a believer susceptible to being "led" by the Spirit (Romans 8:14)? If I choose to follow the Spirit of God, am I not, in a sense, reciprocating? If I withheld my obedience, you could say that I wasn't connected, or associated, or involved with the Holy Spirit, i.e., that I did not have a relationship with him. Therefore, even though "it's a one-way thing with the Spirit" doesn't necessarily mean a relationship doesn't exist there. The Holy Spirit depends upon me in a way, that I do not "quench" him (1 Thess. 5:19), i.e., ignore his promptings, in order for his will to be done. This looks more and more like a cooperative relationship, does it not?
Regardless, a "two-way" relationship with the Godhead is fulfilled by Jesus, who hears a believer's petitions and intercedes with the Father on the believer's behalf.
(and, again, the Spirit is not Jesus, a point you neglected)
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each share the same substance and nature. Whatever is the will of the Father, is the will of the Son, and whatever is the will of the Son, is the will of the Holy Spirit. We make our petitions to the Son and the Son intercedes with the Father on our behalf, and whatever we ask for according to his will we can fully expect to receive. Therefore, that the Spirit is not Jesus is a moot point, since the Spirit "will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak" (John 16:13). That is, a believer can prompt and urge the Holy Spirit in return by petitioning the Father in Jesus' name:
"Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him" (1 John 5:14-15). "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:13-14), "Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full" (John 16:23-24), "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them" (Mark 11:24).
No, St Paul specifically
says that Jesus is in the hearts of believers, that being in communion with Christ is about having
the love of Christ in your hearts and lived out in lives.
Definitely. How is this in conflict with what I assert? I never claimed that Christ was present bodily. God is a Spirit, and all who worship him must worship him in spirit.
A believer need not ever hear God in the fashion described
in the NT in order to be a believer.
Indeed, but every believer must receive the Holy Spirit, and be led by the Holy Spirit in at least some fashion (it may only be according to an enlightened conscience). And every believer who has received the Holy Spirit must not "quench" Him. In this sense, a person must be able to "hear God" in order to be a believer.
And, more relevantly, a believer never need to form a
so-called 'relationship' with Jesus in order to be a believer.
The fact is, a relationship with Jesus is the full measure of God's will for a believer. Jesus said, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). "And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). God is love, and to know God is to know his love. I hope you don't think the fullness of God's love can be experienced outside the bounds of a personal relationship. That would be a mistake.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by epiphinehas(1) "I received no report from any man. Rather, the Spirit proclaimed these words: "Do nothing without the bishop. Keep your bodies as the temples of God. Love unity. Avoid divisions. Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father." ~ Ignatius (c. 105), 1.83,84.
[b]Being 'led by the Holy Spirit' is not having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Being
guided by the laws of the country is not having a relationship with the President of the United
States.
You are equating being led by the Holy Spirit with being guided by the law? Is it the law which drove Jesus into the wilderness in Luke 4:1? Did ...[text shortened]... c.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fellowship[/b]
I get it: the patristic writers can be used to support your beliefs; but should a Catholic or Orthodox Christian refer to them to justify their own doctrines, that is extra-biblical and has no authority. What do you make of Ignatius's reference to bishops?
Originally posted by NemesioYou'll notice that in this passage, that St John isn't speaking of having a fellowship with God,
[b](6) "God exercises a providence over all things. Therefore, He also gives counsel. When giving counsel, He is present with those who attend to moral discipline. It follows, of course, that the subjects who are watched over and governed should be acquainted with their ruler." ~ Irenaeus (c. 180), 1.459.
Again, St Irenaeus views the experience as evidence that my life with God is intertwined with
yours.
Nemesio[/b]
but that his community and the recipients of the letter might have fellowship with each other
through/with/by God and God's Son.
I'm still curious as to why you believe that Christ only has fellowship with the church community as a whole. I have nothing against church, or community; in fact I love my church and all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not in God's will if I do not love my fellow Christians. That being said, however, I can see absolutely no conflict between the love relationship I have with Jesus Christ and the love I have for all my brothers and sisters in Christ. The love I receive from Jesus I give away to them, and the love they receive from Jesus they give away to me! And we all express our love for Jesus by obeying his commandments.
Christ called his disciples 'friends' and because I obey his commandments, he calls me a friend, too. Christ says to me, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me" (Rev. 3:20). I take these things to heart, just as I take Christ's dying in my place on the cross to heart. Tell me, why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I bask in the love of Christ? Christ gives those who 'overcome' and 'endure to the end' eternal life, and eternal life is knowing God's love, and abiding in his love forever. Yet, you construe the receiving of God's love to be a form of selfishness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Self-love is selfish. The love which is received from on high, by contrast, can only be received by a person in a state of brokenness and repentance, i.e., humility.
the idea that St John would espouse having
a personal relationship with God as a primary element of belief is just absurd.
Nothing in your exegesis of 1 John suggests that a personal relationship with Jesus is absurd. The passage is quite clear that Christians have fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. You've asked for a plainly spoken verse and now you have one. I don't care whether it silences you or not. Whether or not you can persist in your error has no bearing on the truth.
Anything at all to provide me with some evidence that my life with God is intertwined with
yours.
"You do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive" (John 5:38-43).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by epiphinehasNothing in your exegesis of 1 John suggests that a personal relationship with Jesus is absurd
[b]You'll notice that in this passage, that St John isn't speaking of having a fellowship with God,
but that his community and the recipients of the letter might have fellowship with each other
through/with/by God and God's Son.
I'm still curious as to why you believe that Christ only has fellowship with the church community as a whole. I have e; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive" (John 5:38-43).[/b]
I don't want to barge into the interesting debate. But I think, just to save time for both of you, I should point out that Nemesio does not claim that such a relationship is absurd; he claims that the idea that such a relationship is a primary element of belief is absurd. Sure, you can justifiably argue that God loves you and that God establishes personal relationships with His believers, What Nemesio denies (at least, as far as I see) is that Christians must believe this. They do not. A Christian might legitimately believe that God is totally impersonal and whatever relationship He has is one of commanding. But I will leave the exegeses to both of you.
Originally posted by Conrau KThe patristic writers asserted many things which line up well with scripture. Others, not so well. Whether Catholics or anyone else base anything on what the patrisitc writers said, doesn't change the fact that (in my view anyway) everything must be tested against scripture.
[b](1) "I received no report from any man. Rather, the Spirit proclaimed these words: "Do nothing without the bishop. Keep your bodies as the temples of God. Love unity. Avoid divisions. Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father." ~ Ignatius (c. 105), 1.83,84.
I get it: the patristic writers can be used to support your beliefs; bu ...[text shortened]... is extra-biblical and has no authority. What do you make of Ignatius's reference to bishops?[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau KI see your point.
Nothing in your exegesis of 1 John suggests that a personal relationship with Jesus is absurd
I don't want to barge into the interesting debate. But I think, just to save time for both of you, I should point out that Nemesio does not claim that such a relationship is absurd; he claims that the idea that such a relationship is a primary element hatever relationship He has is one of commanding. But I will leave the exegeses to both of you.[/b]
My response would be: even that which is a primary element of belief, namely, that one must believe in the Son for the remission of sins - is itself a call to a relationship. If I doubt this claim and reject it, I reject the implication that Christ has anything to do with me personally. Therefore, accepting this claim necessarily means to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus. It is inescapable.
Anyone who does not have a love relationship with Jesus Christ is either not born again, or simply hasn't spent enough time with the Lord.
===================================
and, again, the Spirit is not Jesus, a point you neglected)
=========================================
"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
[b]"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
"For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..."( 2 Cor. 4:5a)
"And the Lord is the Spirit"
The Lord here refers to Christ the Lord (2:12,14-15,17; 3:3-4,14,16)[/b]
"The Lord Spirit of v. 16 is the Spirit who pervades and animates the new covenant of which we are ministers (v.6). Compare Romans 8:9-11; John 14:16, 18"
-- Vincent.
"The Lord of v. 16, is the Spirit ... which giveth life, v.6; meaning 'the Lord,' as here spoken of, 'Christ,' is the Spirit,' identical with the Holy Spirit ... Christ, here, is the Spirit of Christ."
-- Dean Alford
"All that transforming and indwelling Spirit is Christ Himself. 'The Lord is the Spirit' "
-- Williston Walker