|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Spiritual Growth”
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
Gordon, please forgive me my intemperance. I chose not to remember that you don't necessarily read widely on these boards, and that not everyone reads or knows what I do.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What's a 'spiritual director'?
"An Elder in the faith who provides counsel" might be a fair description. I think it's formally part of the Rule of St Benedict, and I believe it is in any case widespread in all monastic traditions. Nunc will confirm that the practise is widespread amongst clergy across the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
Gordon, a spiritual director, also known as an anam cara or soul friend, companion or mentor, is someone you might go and see, say, once a month in order to reflect on your life in the past month. This reflection is largely on your spiritual/prayer life in Christ, but can incorporate anything: it is not unusual for an SD to look broadly at other activity in life (for example, whether one is getting enough sleep, exercise, healthy diet etc). This is because we are not just physical or spiritual beings, but are a whole being. Psychology has helped us to realise that stuff going on inside one's head can have and often does have a physical effect. Same goes for spiritual stuff.
Sometimes a director might gently guide one to reflect more closely, say, on a particular metaphor for God which we have found, say, in the scriptures. My director and I several years back spent several months exploring the meaning the Nunc Dimittis has for me (the song of Simeon in Luke), and how praying that prayer immediately leads me into a place where I find God (or God finds me).
See it's not that God is never present to us: God is in and through, around, sustaining, above, etc etc and nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. But we are not always present to God... We explored how reflecting on the Nunc Dimittis is helpful for me to maintain that awareness of God, whose I am.
Gordon, you said:
quote:
So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached? Or is that a silly thing to ask? Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?
Gordon, none of us can say whether we are more spiritually advanced than anyone else. Besides, it's not a race against each other, there are no competitive "Spiritual Games".
I think espousing a particular view of God can be stunting - my own experience speaks about that ad nauseam. I think putting God in any sort of box is spiritually stunting.
In my view we are all here to help each other on the path to glory, not point out how weak we all are. Some of us probably ARE more advanced than others, but so what? That's between each of us and God. What we *can* do is, if someone asks us what has helped us to make present the reality of what God has done for us in Christ hour by hour, we can share with them what has helped us. They can try what is suggested, and see if it helps.
So, none of us are judging you to be spiritually inferior because you don't take advantage of several tried and true spiritual disciplines. What we can't understand is why you would actively strive against having any.
The charge that it leads to legalism or a practice of salvation by works is a furphy; as I said above, the whole point of spiritual disciplines is that they help us to focus on the Goal of our desires, Christ the Beloved and the Father in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. That we can dwell in God has been made possible through Christ. And in some sense we are already there: in him we live and move and have our being, we are reconciled and redeemed. But this is not always our conscious reality, and that is what we are striving for...
Hence the expression "closer to God". It's not that we are far from God, because we are "in Christ". It's that we recognise that we do not always live the reality of that, which is a sense of the presence of God in our lives. Saying that one wants to "draw closer to God" is therefore saying nothing more than what I have illuminated above: it is simply an articulation of a) the desire for God and b) to become more aware of God's love, presence, sustenance, and so on minute by minute - "breathing the presence of God", so to speak.
What you are trying to do, it seems to me, is play the organ without using feet or hands to do so. It's not impossible to make music this way, and you can certainly hear how it goes in your head, but using one's feet and hands means you can give yourself more fully to the concrete expression of the music.
So, if you can get lost in the music just by reading musical scores, fine. Just don't then say that we SHOULDN'T need to *play* the scores to fully experience the music, or that doing so is legalistic. It's not actually about the physical playing, it's not about the written notes on the page. It's all about the sound. The performance (and even the scores) are an aid to this, and no more.
Without pressing the metaphor too hard, spiritual discipline is the same. The goal of any spiritual practice is living in the awareness of God, and of all he has done for us. In some sense it doesn't matter how you get there, but that's what we're designed for and what we are heading towards.
Are you absorbing or understanding any of this Gordon? My fear is that you are not...
If I said to you, "I want to know Christ, and him crucified" (thanks to St Paul), by this I would mean I want to know the intimacy of our Lord, his presence and sustaining love in my whole being, that I want to live in the mystery of his self-sacrifice for my sake, that I will give my whole self to him, and that I will strive to carry the cross with him by whatever means, so that I might as much as possible - and hopefully eventually (in heaven?) all the time - live in him, and he in me.
If you said to me: "I want to know Christ, and him crucified", would would you mean by that? My suspcion, based on this assertion:
quote:
Being saved from hell, and living with the Lord Jesus and his children forever is the goal. But yes, anyone who is in Christ (which happens by trusting him for forgiveness) has achieved that goal already, through what he's done on the cross. So if this is what you mean by theosis, then you're right, I have no need of spiritual discipline. Nor does anyone else who loves and trusts Jesus.
is that you focus on the fact and factual knowledge of Christ.
My argument, and that of others here, is that love and trust in Jesus drives us to want to know him better and deeper, and to live the reality of what he has done for us - living and breathing the gospel. The spiritual disciplines are several possible ways other people in the church have found helpful in developing relationship with God.
If you can't see the value of that, I am at a complete loss. What exactly is the point of being Christian if the restored relationship we have with God is only a theorem, and love an equation? If it's something within which it is said that experience is irrelevant?
Because to me, that is what you are saying. Indeed, it is my chief argument with evangelicalism in Sydney: it is to me spiritually shallow, and fails to plumb the depths, breadth, width and height of the mystery of the love of God towards us in Christ.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, I thought the 1 Cor 9 verses might appear in the discussion, so thanks for mentioning them, Ricardus.
But you're not going to comment on why they don't support our case?
quote:
A genuine question: I've admitted on this thread to not having spiritual disciplines, to working against having them and to finding them personally unhelpful (at least I think I said that last one; if I didn't say it earlier I am now).
I can understand you find things unhelpful, but I'm not sure that I can understand the striving against all spiritual disciplines. That almost sounds as though you have a discipline of having no discipline.
quote:
So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached?
Why? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.
quote:
Or is that a silly thing to ask? Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?
By the way, I think I've said it before but just to make it clear again, I don't believe there is such a thing as the effort-free Christian life. In fact, I believe it is much harder being a Christian than not.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
"There are no silly questions, only silly people." But for that one I'd make an exception. Comparative spiritual performance tracking has never crossed my mind, and I believe it to be forbidden in scripture and in any case contrary to the whole vibe.
)
I thought spiritual disciplines were supposed to bring you closer to God? The terms 'farther' and 'nearer' must mean something.
Yes, farther and nearer mean something for me as an individual, but what I (and AdamPater, I think) would say is that we can know for ourselves whether we are closer to God, but that it is not our place to judge on where other people are. We know not what their particular situation is. I am reminded of the Chapter Nice People or New Men? in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity where he talks about an apparently nasty person who is a Christian and an apparently nice person who isn't and points out that we cannot use them as arguments that Christianity does not work, because we do not know the hands they have been dealt and what they would be like if they were or were not a Christian.
quote:
What's a 'spiritual director'?
Others have answered this, but I'll say `the piano teacher'.
quote:
This morning at church a lady told me that she believed the crisis that brought down here marriage was when she started to read the Bible daily. I have no idea whether that has anything to do with our discussion, but I thought I might mention it and youse can tell me what to make of it.
I would say that it doesn't because we do not know the ins and outs of the situation.
Carys
[edited for [ for ]]
[ 30. October 2005, 10:22: Message edited by: Carys ]
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Yes, farther and nearer mean something for me as an individual, but what I (and AdamPater, I think) would say is that we can know for ourselves whether we are closer to God, but that it is not our place to judge on where other people are.
Yes. I hear this in John 21:21-22 quote:
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"
From which I read Jesus' response to all my concerns about someone-else: "Follow me." I guess when I'm through with that I may have time to worry about judging others, but it's really not my bailiwick.
It's all about following Jesus. Nunc speaks wisdom, I reckon.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
I don't agree with Gordon's take on the Bible, but if he's saying something like the notion of distance from God is about perception not reality, then I'd say he's right.
If faith depends on how close we feel to God, I don't see it has much value at all. If spiritual discipline is only some people's take on how to live a better life, if they find feeling close to God helps with that, then fair enough. But if the exercise of 'spiritual discipline' becomes a primary expression of faith, that sounds like something that could work against spiritual growth.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A genuine question: I've admitted on this thread to not having spiritual disciplines, to working against having them and to finding them personally unhelpful (at least I think I said that last one; if I didn't say it earlier I am now).
So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached? Or is that a silly thing to ask? Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?
What Carys, Nunc and AdamPater said. Judging you is none of my business, and I wouldn't have the necessary equipment to do so if I tried.
But what we're saying is that spiritual discipline is a useful practice for Christian growth, not that it's the only useful practice, so no, there's no "of necessity" about it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But if the exercise of 'spiritual discipline' becomes a primary expression of faith, that sounds like something that could work against spiritual growth.
You and Gordon must have gone to the same school or something.
If you want to run a marathon, and win, you have to train for it. In fact, if you want to run a marathon, and finish it, you have to train for it. It would be really, really weird to talk to an athlete who was opposed to training because it could work against his physical conditioning. And it's really, really weird to hear you and Gordon say that spiritual discipline could work against spiritual growth.
Spiritual discipline is simply the way we train ourselves to be more godly. For some of us, feelings of closeness to God develop as a result of it. Just like an athlete might feel strong and fit. That's fine. Some of us might not have the same feelings. The feelings are not the point, though, even if they are sometimes one result.
For some of us, regularly scheduled activities are part of our spiritual discipline -- a schedule keeps prayer, or Bible reading, or whatever or training exercises are, from getting crowded out of our excessively busy lives. Just like an athlete might schedule weight training and cardio workouts and whatever else they do to prepare for their competitions. But the schedule isn't the thing. Nor are the exercises (whether prayer or weight training). The goal for the athlete is to win. The goal for the Christian is to become by grace what God is by nature. It takes effort, either way.
For me, I think the single thing that has had the most impact on my spiritual growth was reflecting on Luther's Small Catechism -- in particular his comment on the Eighth Commandment. Loosely paraphrased, he said that we are to love and fear God so that we not only don't lie about other people, but we think well of them, defend them, and as far as possible accept the kindest possible explanation for anything they do. Dorotheos of Gaza said much the same thing, but he was a little wordier about it. And reflecting on that, and trying to put it into practice in my dealings with other people, has been of enormous benefit to me.
I haven't practiced that on a schedule, of course, but rather as the opportunities have arisen. Again, the schedule isn't the thing. Learning to love others and to love God -- that's the thing. And it's hard work, and it takes discipline.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't agree with Gordon's take on the Bible, but if he's saying something like the notion of distance from God is about perception not reality, then I'd say he's right.
If faith depends on how close we feel to God, I don't see it has much value at all. If spiritual discipline is only some people's take on how to live a better life, if they find feeling close to God helps with that, then fair enough.
I'm not sure what you're responding to here. By "closeness to God" I don't think that many people here are talking particularly about warm fuzzy feelings. It is more a question of whether our will and God's will are in harmony - closeness of our wills to God's.
quote:
But if the exercise of 'spiritual discipline' becomes a primary expression of faith, that sounds like something that could work against spiritual growth.
What do you mean by a primary expression of faith? Spiritual discipline is good because it helps foster other goods, rather than being an end in itself. Piano practice is good because it helps you become a good pianist, but the definition of "good pianist" is not "one who practises a lot".
[ 30. October 2005, 15:22: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
You know I rather thought that the danger of legalism had been explicitly recognised many times on this thread. Right back at the OP in fact. So yes, of course there are potential pitfalls within the spiritual disciplines, but this is true of all areas of life.
That having been freely admitted, we have a situation where many Shipmates have said they find an element of discipline in their Christian life useful. We have had no one who claims for a minute that this makes them a "better Christian" than those who find a more relaxed approach helpful. Why therefore do we have some posters becoming so defensive about this topic that they seem to be trying to ban any Christain from using discipline at any time? Why has the OP provoked such strong reactions from some Shipmates?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Why has the OP provoked such strong reactions from some Shipmates?
They're not good Christians. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The goal for the athlete is to win. The goal for the Christian is to become by grace what God is by nature. It takes effort, either way.
I understand growth to be something that happens if the circumstances are right. It's not the result of effort but a consequence of being in an environment that allows us to become more like who we have the potential to be.
Spiritual growth seems to be about becoming grounded in those values that have meaning for eternity. If the whole athletics analogy helps with that then it's doing what you say. My worry would be that it could result in a religiously muscle-bound body-builder with the appearance and routine of a saint, unable or unwilling to seek out places and experiences that might more effectively encourage those eternal values to take root.
quote:
I think the single thing that has had the most impact on my spiritual growth was reflecting on Luther's Small Catechism ... trying to put it into practice in my dealings with other people, has been of enormous benefit to me.
Time for reflection seems good for my psychological health. I find reflecting on whatever I've experienced, whether it's a TV show, a work project, or something I've read on the Ship, is necessary to keep me on a even keel. I'd hate to turn that into something religious. quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you mean by a primary expression of faith? Spiritual discipline is good because it helps foster other goods, rather than being an end in itself. Piano practice is good because it helps you become a good pianist, but the definition of "good pianist" is not "one who practises a lot".
I think what I'm struggling with is the connection between learning a skill, becoming a virtuoso even, and the process by which we become more God-oriented. Ordinary secular life seems like a natural environment for that.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
]I think what I'm struggling with is the connection between learning a skill, becoming a virtuoso even, and the process by which we become more God-oriented. Ordinary secular life seems like a natural environment for that.
Dave, I think this is particularly well put and I am fascinated by how much I agree with you, as on every other thread we've spoken on we have come to sharply varying conclusions, even though I am in agreement with much of your philosophical methodology, if I've understood it correctly.
Adam P, no worries at all, I wasn't offended and I could see how if you thought I was being disingenuous, it would have been infuriating, but thank you for the apology. It was a serious question and Nunc's extended answer points to why I felt it necessary to ask. As with "spiritual discipline", the term "spiritual director" is broad. It comprehends within itself ideas to which I have no objection at all, right through to ideas that I find potentially toxic to Christian health.
At one end of the spectrum it seems to mean 'respected friend whose spiritual advice I trust' (and of course, I have a number of such 'spiritual directors' but I prefer to call them 'respected friends whose advice I trust). At the other extreme end, the spiritual director is one whose authority over my spiritual life seems to usurp the place I, as an evangelical, would normally give to God speaking in Scripture.
Now, to return to Dave's comment and via it to what some others have said, ISTM that the passages in which the New Testament speaks of training and discipline (and 1 Cor 9:24-27, quoted by Ricardus is an excellent example, but the same point holds true for some of the other passages quoted) ought not to be appropriated to apply to anything other than the normal (intense) effort associated with living the Christian life. Indeed, if 1 Cor 9: 24-27 has specific application, it is not at all to what a number of contributors seem to mean by 'spiritual discipline', but to the difficult task of being a servant of all in order to evangelize them. After all, this is precisely what he has been discussing for the last two chapters, and the last chapter in particular, so it would seem odd to suddenly begin to speak about private spiritual practises such as daily prayer—he hasn't spoken of it before this, and he doesn't go on to speak of it.
I think the appeals made by forum participants to their own experience and to certain traditions of the church (not my church, by the way) are interesting and enlightening. I am also sure (especially after carefully reading Nunc's posts) that we are aiming for the same thing; and unmediated experience of God that leaves no corner of our being untouched.
To the first set of arguments (those from experience and tradition) I would simply say that my experience and my tradition (having been converted from an atheistic background in 1975) has been radically different to those of others; I have not as a rule practiced spiritual discipline but still find great joy and peace in my relationship with my heavenly Father. Because I find nothing in scripture to suggest that spiritual disciplines (defined broadly as habits I seek to inculcate to strengthen my relationship with God), I am deeply suspicious of the occasional attempts to marry biblical Christianity with the experiences and traditions referred to by others here. I also note a number of New Testament warnings about religious practices that sound a lot like spiritual discipline.
To the suggestion that our spiritual disciplines will help us to achieve the unmediated experience of God that Nunc seems to describe in her post further up this page; I believe that what she is talking about is heaven. The experience of heaven comes about in one of two ways only; firstly by passing through death and judgement, secondly (and as the only alternative) by being present on the day Christ returns to judge (in which case we are transformed without dying).
My unexpected agreement with Dave leads me to suspect that we may be talking about two different religions; one with spiritual disciplines and one without. But that's hypothesis, not assertion. This thread is helpful in thinking that through.
[ 30. October 2005, 19:45: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
My unexpected agreement with Dave leads me to suspect that we may be talking about two different religions; one with spiritual disciplines and one without.
Sorry GC, even though this is hypothesis and not assertion, you've lost me here. Most of us on this thread have been happy to say that we find spiritual disciplines helpful, but we recognise that not every Christian does. Suddenly you want to speculate that we're talking about two separate religions? Why do you want to make a leap like that? And which of the two different religions would you award the title of "Christianity" to?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Because I find nothing in scripture to suggest that spiritual disciplines (defined broadly as habits I seek to inculcate to strengthen my relationship with God)
I for one wouldn't be happy with your broad definition at all: you, once again, insist on reading far too much independent effort into what can only ever be seeking to cooperate with God's grace and work.
quote:
The experience of heaven comes about in one of two ways only; firstly by passing through death and judgement, secondly (and as the only alternative) by being present on the day Christ returns to judge (in which case we are transformed without dying). This thread is helpful in thinking that through.
While I think you are correct in associating "heaven" with the objectives in Nunc's post, you are mistaken in how we get there, and you confuse it with the resurrection. Following your style of argument, I would point out that, being in Christ, and joined with him in his death and resurrection, we have already died and risen again. Nothing more is to be done, for Christ has done all, in all. Heaven is where God is, and heaven enfolds us now.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think what I'm struggling with is the connection between learning a skill, becoming a virtuoso even, and the process by which we become more God-oriented.
Well, the only specific connection I was making was that spiritual discipline is IMO good in the same way that piano practice is good: not as an end in itself but because it helps achieve good. Fasting (for example) is good because, if you are ever in a situation where doing good forces you to forgo something, you'll have had some practice in this.
quote:
Ordinary secular life seems like a natural environment for that.
On this issue I'm not sure how useful it is to distinguish secular from religious life. Fasting relates to eating, which would surely count as "secular". By non-secular do you mean such practices as, say, regular Bible study? But Scripture (alongside Reason and Tradition, of course) is supposed to be as much a foundation of my "secular" life as of my "religious" life.
[ 30. October 2005, 22:37: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Because I find nothing in scripture to suggest that spiritual disciplines (defined broadly as habits I seek to inculcate to strengthen my relationship with God)
I for one wouldn't be happy with your broad definition at all: you, once again, insist on reading far too much independent effort into what can only ever be seeking to cooperate with God's grace and work.
Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with. By nature I am unco-operative.
quote:
Following your style of argument, I would point out that, being in Christ, and joined with him in his death and resurrection, we have already died and risen again. Nothing more is to be done, for Christ has done all, in all. Heaven is where God is, and heaven enfolds us now.
Funnily enough, I believe that this is what the New Testament teaches; Ephesians 2:1-10 would be one example of this.
Paradoxically (and I believe some liberals would write it off as contradictory, but I don't think this is you Adam) the New Testament also insists that there is a part of this experience of heaven that is as yet unrealized.
One really clear example of where the New Testament works to resolve antinomy is Romans 6, where Paul insists that we died with Christ, and that although we are now in Christ, yet we await the day where we will be raised with him (although it is obvious that Christ has indeed been raised).
So we are to live out what we have become, although we are still looking forward to being united with him in resurrection (although we are now united). You see the tension I'm sure. That living out what we are to become refers to offering the parts of our bodies as slaves to righteousness. Obviously I have yet to be persuaded that there is anywhere in the Bible where it is linked to some specific activity such as daily prayer.
An even starker example of this tension is in Philippians 2:12-13. "Therefore my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in your absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling...
[suggesting to the casual reader that the Christian life is a life of effort and strain]
for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
[suggesting what appears to be, but I believe isn't, the opposite, which is that God is the one doing the work].
Whether you call this co-operation or not I don't know. I would prefer not; I am uncomfortable with the language if it suggests two equal partners (or even somewhat unequal partners) working to achieve an end.But even here I don't see that Paul is endorsing a notion of specific spiritual disciplines; he seems to be exhorting the Philippians to an entire life dedicated to working out the consequences of having already belonged to Christ through the gospel.
TW, if I pursue a religion that involves no spiritual discipline whatsoever (and that is what I am currently committed to doing, with the previously noted qualifications about 'self-control' on page 1 of this thread), then I suggest it is at least possible that it is a different religion from one that does involve spiritual discipline. but as it is only a hypothesis, I don't really feel I ought to say much more about it. I prefer to leave theories about final judgement to God, whose beliefs are more than hypotheses, they are realities with which we live.
[ 30. October 2005, 22:56: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with. By nature I am unco-operative.
Of course you, as of course I am. But we can both learn to be otherwise, much to the relief of our families, friends, and those unfortunates with whom we mix.
I don't understand your reluctance to cooperate with God. Our salvation begins when we begin to say "yes" to God, or even before that, when we cease to say "no". (Afterwards we can see that God was working with us long, long before that, but that doesn't take away from the joy of our "yes!")
quote:
quote:
Following your style of argument, I would point out that, being in Christ, and joined with him in his death and resurrection, we have already died and risen again. Nothing more is to be done, for Christ has done all, in all. Heaven is where God is, and heaven enfolds us now.
Funnily enough, I believe that this is what the New Testament teaches; Ephesians 2:1-10 would be one example of this.
Yes, you bet. Me too.
quote:
Paradoxically (and I believe some liberals would write it off as contradictory, but I don't think this is you Adam) the New Testament also insists that there is a part of this experience of heaven that is as yet unrealized.
To be honest, I wouldn't know: I don't think I'm a "liberal", but I have never heard anyone protest that paradox. Christian hope is in the "now, but not yet" of the Kingdom.
quote:
One really clear example of where the New Testament works to resolve antinomy is Romans 6, where Paul insists that we died with Christ, and that although we are now in Christ, yet we await the day where we will be raised with him (although it is obvious that Christ has indeed been raised).
So we are to live out what we have become, although we are still looking forward to being united with him in resurrection (although we are now united). You see the tension I'm sure. That living out what we are to become refers to offering the parts of our bodies as slaves to righteousness. Obviously I have yet to be persuaded that there is anywhere in the Bible where it is linked to some specific activity such as daily prayer.
Yes, yes, Yes, YES, YES!.... no. Why on earth do you not think prayer might be involved?
quote:
An even starker example of this tension is in Philippians 2:12-13. "Therefore my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in your absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling...
[suggesting to the casual reader that the Christian life is a life of effort and strain]
for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
[suggesting what appears to be, but I believe isn't, the opposite, which is that God is the one doing the work].
Heaps more "yes." (Do you detect a pattern of agreement?)
quote:
Whether you call this co-operation or not I don't know.
Yes, I do, because it involves me, as St Paul directs, putting off the old and putting on the new, ceasing to live according to the flesh and instead turning to the new life within me (by the grace of God). I'm not inclined by nature to do this, as you know, so I find it demanding and an effort. To do something that I don't want to do requires discipline....
Despite your protestations, I don't believe you when you say you lead an undisciplined life, spiritual or otherwise. I doubt that your family and friends are saintly enough to tolerate you if you didn't actively curb the natural inclinations that you and I share. It seems to me that you have a blind spot, and I don't understand it.
quote:
I would prefer not; I am uncomfortable with the language if it suggests two equal partners (or even somewhat unequal partners) working to achieve an end.But even here I don't see that Paul is endorsing a notion of specific spiritual disciplines; he seems to be exhorting the Philippians to an entire life dedicated to working out the consequences of having already belonged to Christ through the gospel.
Right there, I hear you saying something like "I don't see Paul endorsing spiritual discplines; he seems to be exhorting them to live a displined spiritual life". You really are quite exasperating.
I wonder (actually, I'm pretty sure, but it's more polite to say "I wonder") if this weird mix of ardent agreement and tortured protest is a result of the manner in which you insist on interpreting scripture: if it isn't spelled out there, in black and white and Pauline triplicate, then you are extremely reluctant to acknowledge that it exists or is valid. It seems to me that this leaves you blind to the obvious, that which can be inferred from Holy Scripture and then verified by the experience of the church under the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Somewhere I read or heard a remark on Luther and Calvin, that Luther tended to keep and maintain that which was not inconsistent with his reading of scripture, but Calvin tended to throw out the lot and start again from first principles. The results being the holy mess of evangelical catholicism, and the pristine cold beauty of Reformed theology. Personally, I find the latter too cold to live in, compared to the fire and life I find in the former.
More seriously, the Calvinist approach depends on the validity of its assumptions. In practice, I don't think any set of assumptions is worthy of founding one's life upon: all of our understanding is provisional until Jesus comes again and we get to see clearly for the first time. Yet we are guided by the Holy Spirit, through prayer and discipline to pursue the goal, the end to which we are called. The bundle of things that are often referred to as "spiritual discplines" are tools to help, simple helpful tools, like a diary or a journal, or a brisk walk in the evening.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with. By nature I am unco-operative.
Me too. I don't think it's always a good thing. I am by nature also lazy, arrogant and mean, and I doubt I'm the only one. So I have a hard time with any argument that rests so heavily on what's in anyone's nature.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hi RuthW, I didn't mean to go from an 'is' to an 'ought', ie I didn't mean to say that 'I am uncoopoerative therefore'... well, anything. It's just that my basic (human) nature has an intense hatred of discipline and any sort of law (even the obvious, brilliant, stunningly right ones such as "do not murder") which can only be overcome by a miracle. I don't believe my hatred of discipline can be overcome by discipline.
Adam P, the antinomy I mentioned is of course not the only one in Paul. the others are the ones where he absolutely refuses to endorse any form of lawkeeping, including I believe what we have been referring to on this thread as spiritual disciplines
(BTW 'prayer' is not on my view a spiritual discipline; daily prayer may be, or it may be a habit, or it may be an accident of circumsatnce, or it may be legislated by the church I belong to without being seen as necessary for salvation, or it may be an obsessive compulsion. Some of these reasons for daily prayer are right, some are wrong. Again the wolliness of what is meant by spiritual discipline, unavoidable because we are dealing with matters of the heart and trying to do so by, to some extent, speaking of externals).
for Paul's attack on certain types of spiritual disciplines, we don't need him speaking in triplicate, we already have him in singlicate attacking practises like fasting and the keeping of special days; whilst allowing that it may not in any and every circumstance a sin to do these things.
The vibe with Paul is, do what you reckon. Or in the words of Luther (to whom I feel more personally attracted than Calvin, although I think Calvin was by far the better exegete)
quote:
originally posted by Luther:
A Christian man is most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.
Or, as I said, do what you reckon. But the part of spiritual discipline that is legalism (and you can't tell me that there is no such part) must be utterly rejected and committed to the flames. IMHO.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's just that my basic (human) nature has an intense hatred of discipline and any sort of law (even the obvious, brilliant, stunningly right ones such as "do not murder") which can only be overcome by a miracle. I don't believe my hatred of discipline can be overcome by discipline.
I think that Gordon here is merely being faithful to beliefs such as those expressed in the following affirmations and denials in "A Call to Evangelical Unity":
quote:
13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.
We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).
14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.
The entire argument, as I understand it, is built around avoiding merit, and attributing everything to Christ.
Personally, I don't think that the argument holds water. If you have the capacity to believe in Christ, you have the capacity to employ spiritual discipline in order to grow spiritually.
The only caveat is that everything needs to be attributed to God. I think that Jesus clearly commanded this method of growth.
[ 31. October 2005, 01:17: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But the part of spiritual discipline that is legalism (and you can't tell me that there is no such part) must be utterly rejected and committed to the flames. IMHO.
Alas, I do so tell you. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The entire argument, as I understand it, is built around avoiding merit, and attributing everything to Christ.
Personally, I don't think that the argument holds water. If you have the capacity to believe in Christ, you have the capacity to employ spiritual discipline in order to grow spiritually.
"If"
The word I highlight is the word I deny. We have no such capacity.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Alas, I do so tell you.
To be more precise I should say, I do so tell you about the things I'm talking about, and I agree with you about the things that you seem to be talking about, but I can't seem to communicate that the things about which I am speaking are not the things about which you are speaking.
quote:
The word I highlight is the word I deny. We have no such capacity.
Yet I rejoice in the observation that I do, in fact, believe in Christ, and even more so that I am continuing to learn what it means to believe in Christ. Having observed me in this state, I must conclude that I have the capacity to be in this state. Ipso facto, QED, up-ya-bum, yah-pooh-sucks. You're wrong.
All by the grace of Christ, of course. I'm sure you wouldn't be wrong in any other way ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Alas, I do so tell you.
To be more precise I should say, I do so tell you about the things I'm talking about, and I agree with you about the things that you seem to be talking about, but I can't seem to communicate that the things about which I am speaking are not the things about which you are speaking.
That would be because speaking of spiritual discipline is, as much as we might like it to be otherwise, really a matter of speaking of the externals of behaviour rather than the inward working of grace. Such a discussion, dealing with externals rather than matters of the heart, will of course become mired in ambiguity.
Any capacity we have to believe is, of course, granted to us by God "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that are not". If the thing has been called into existence (you, together with your faith), it exists. If it hasn't been called, we wait. What looks like spiritual discipline is really a voluntary efflorescence of our spiritual existence, and a far less confusing word would be 'obedience'.
[ 31. October 2005, 02:12: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
So you say, by ignoring how other people are using these terms.
They have to do with externals of behaviour? Sure. This makes them irrelevant? Of course not.
If we are spiritual, we are spirits incarnate in flesh. If it were not so, Jesus would not have had to come in the flesh to redeem us. These externalities which affect the flesh affect us too. Cf lots of stuff that C.S. Lewis, inter alia, wrote about wearing masks and becoming new men.
We are incarnate beings. What we do with our bodies changes us. Therefore disciplining the flesh is a necessary part of our salvation/sanctification/working out our salvation. St James says so too. And so does St Paul. And Nunc.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That would be because speaking of spiritual discipline is, as much as we might like it to be otherwise, really a matter of speaking of the externals of behaviour rather than the inward working of grace.
Can't be both/and? Only either/or?
Gordon's position seems to me to be the perfect terminus of a reductio ad absurdam argument against Sola Fides.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Just a branch on the vine
Shipmate
# 7752
|
Posted
Wow. Sorry to start a thread and then drop off the face of the planet, but college happened, so I just read/skimmed the entirety of the thread to catch up.
To backtrack a little (if that's okay):
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
By the way - can I apologize to "Just a branch on the vine" for all this? This was a perfectly nice thread about useful advice for praying and spiritual growth, before it got completely sidetracked into a discussion of the idiosyncracies of Gordon's own personal doctrine of soteriology.
Not a problem. The whole thread has been helpful, actually. I don't feel too badly about dropping off the face of the earth, because I doubt I could have added much to the thread anyway. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng: Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with.
Maybe I'm way off the mark here, but aren't followers of Christ, by definition, cooperators with the work of God? We are studying Genesis in class, and we talk about the partnership that seems present between God and Abraham (i.e., Abraham bargaining with God in Gen. 18: 22-33; Abraham's willingness to sacrafice Isaac having some role to play in the actions of God, especailly seen in 22:16-18: " . . . Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you . . .".). Is it wrong, then, to say we are partners with God, and that we have a part to play in cooperating with the divine?
[/tangent]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hey welcome back, Just a branch on the vine.
The Abraham story is a classic (indeed the classic) example of how it is not a matter of cooperation. Genesis 12: 1-3 is where the Abraham story begins, with the completely unilateral call of God "Go ... and I will .." . It's a command, not a polite request. So Abraham does, and God does.
In fact the Abraham story is the basis of Paul's claim in Romans 4:17 that God is a God "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that are not". His proof for this is none other than Abraham, the father of many nations.
Indeed there is every reason within the Genesis narrative to see Gen 12;1-3 and the call of Abraham as a new creation, resolving the hanging question of Gen 11 as to whether there will be any mitigation of the divine judgement on Adam's (and humanity's worsening) disobedience. Once you see that the call of Abraham re-affirms the moment of creation "I will make..." (Gen 12:2); and note the restatement of the creation mandate to Adam and Eve when Abraham is told that he will be the father of many (cf "Be fruitful and multiply").
It's not cooperation, it's response. just like the springing into being of creation in Gen 1:1, is not cooperation, it's the only possible response to God's word. (2 Corinthians 4:6 draws together creation and redemption wonderfully)
[ 31. October 2005, 05:14: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That would be because speaking of spiritual discipline is, as much as we might like it to be otherwise, really a matter of speaking of the externals of behaviour rather than the inward working of grace.
Can't be both/and? Only either/or?
Biblically speaking, I think it's the good tree that bears good fruit, not good fruit that bears the good tree.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
The Abraham story is one of many excellent scriptural examples of God's people cooperating with their Lord. Genesis 12: 1-3 is where the Abraham story begins, with the completely unilateral call of God "Go ... and I will .." . It's a command, not a polite request. So Abraham does, and God does. Abraham cooperates with his Lord.
The Lord's command did not, of itself, transport Abraham to the Promised Land. He had to walk. A long way. And it was all the unmerited gift of God.
I don't have the time for this, and the repetition is boring me to tears. I imagine everyone else has gnawed their legs off by now. Sayonara, sweet-hearts.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In much the same way, presumably, as light cooperated with God when God said "Let there be light".
<boggle> Gordon, do you think God spoke to Abraham? That Abraham then heard and responded? Or do you think it's all just a metaphor, that this event didn't actually happen?
God saying "Get thee to the promised land" is clearly nothing like "let there be light". If it were, the next line would be "and it was so", or similar, and Abraham would suddenly find himself with a new address.
Honestly, you are making absolutely no sense at all.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Response is the right word, though, isn't it. I don't believe Abraham had a free choice in the matter, any more than Adam and Eve had a free choice in their own creation (cf John 1 and the birth idea expressed there). The analogy with Gen 1 is very important in understanding what is going on with Abraham, especially when you see the way the NT explains it (Rom 4:17, as I mentioned)
[ 31. October 2005, 06:32: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Honestly, you are making absolutely no sense at all.
Except in the sense that only God can act. He animates all of creation. In that sense only God has being.
I agree with this completely.
However, the appearance is that we act of our own accord and from our own power. This is, in fact, the source of our spiritual freedom. Yet this very appearance is a gift from God.
Still, the freedom is real. We are therefore responsible for our choices, even though they are only possible from God's power.
Therefore spiritual growth is not only possible but necessary, through the spiritual disciplines that Christ taught.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
[ETA: crosspost with freddy]
Excuse me? What about "Abraham trusted God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? He had no choice in the matter? No choice at all? As the Israelites had no choice in wandering through the wilderness? Etc, etc, and so forth.
Gordon, over the past 24 hours, I've been carefully assuming that you don't understand what others a talking about. The past hour leads to believe you are living a caricature of Calvinism that I've tried to tell Catholic and <shudder> "liberal" friends doesn't really exist.
Enough, enough, enough. I'll pray for you. Regularly.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Response is the right word, though, isn't it. I don't believe Abraham had a free choice in the matter, .... <snip>
[ 31. October 2005, 06:47: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Gordon, over the past 24 hours, I've been carefully assuming that you don't understand what others a talking about. The past hour leads to believe you are living a caricature of Calvinism that I've tried to tell Catholic and <shudder> "liberal" friends doesn't really exist.
It is only the logically consistent conclusion of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This makes divine omnipotence the only relevant factor.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
He had no choice in the matter? No choice at all?
I'm fairly sure I didn't say that.
He had no free choice. It's a Lutheran view. And Augustinian. And Pauline. And... oh never mind.
Prayers always appreciated though, mate.
[ 31. October 2005, 08:03: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
GC: quote:
TW, if I pursue a religion that involves no spiritual discipline whatsoever (and that is what I am currently committed to doing, with the previously noted qualifications about 'self-control' on page 1 of this thread), then I suggest it is at least possible that it is a different religion from one that does involve spiritual discipline.
Sorry to move back a bit but I've only just got up. GC you are NOT pursuing "a religion that involves no spiritual discipline whatsoever"; you are pursing Christianity which does involve them. Yes, they are not explicitly outlined in the Bible; they are ideas that many Christians have found useful, hammered out over 2000 years of being led by the Spirit. The Christian life is full of things not mandated in the Bible which individuals may or may not find helpful - if they are not laid down then we are free to pick and chose. (For example OHPs in worship. Not Biblical, personally I find them an abomination, bu if you find they help then please go ahead and use them as much as you like.) I still have no idea why you react so strongly to the fact that many of your fellow Christains enjoy these disciplines. You tempt me to play armchair psychologist, but I am resisting that.
As for the Abraham stuff, you are muddying the waters here (surely not - it must be an accident on your part). JABOTV specifically referred to Genesis 18 (Abraham pleading with God to be merciful to Sodom) and Genesis 22 (Abraham struggling to obey God when commanded to sacrifice Isaac), both of which illustrate the theme of cooperation with God very well. You haven't dealt with these passages, instead you have discussed Genesis 12 (the call of Abraham). And despite bringing in famous names you haven't convinced me even here that your exegesis is correct; certainly not in Pauline terms (Luther and Augustine you are likely to know more about than I do, I freely admit).
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hi TW
This sniping comment is beginning to wear thin.
quote:
(surely not - it must be an accident on your part)
There is an existing Hell thread for you to say this sort of thing on. But thank you for your question; if you are able to rephrase it with the personal attack removed I will have a go at answering.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
One thing puzzles me. I thought Anglican clergy were required to do spiritual discipline, in the form of saying Morning and Evening prayer daily? I'm sure this is the case in the Church of England at least.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Sniping? Moi? Having seen the way you argue on many threads now surely I would have no grounds for complaining that you shift your ground when you've lost the main point?
Anyway, to be helpful let me rephrase my observation: The Abraham story, taken as a whole, is a good illustration of a believer co-operating with God, rather than "believer as flesh covered automotan". What say you, O bellicose imbelicile?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Ricardus: No such requirement exists in Sydney Dio. But if it did, it wouldn't quite fit into the same sort of arguments about legalism I'm putting here. It would be a requirement imposed by the denomination, and Christian freedom would mean that I would be free to submit to it.
A significant part of the issue for me in this discussion is why something is done. If it's simply a matter of habit, or perhaps even if I pray because I suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (at the moment it's just my posting on SoF that is a result of that ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), that would have a different moral dimension to it than if I believed that the discipline itself was bringing me closer to God.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
<why am I doing this?>
Gordon, I'm not sure that there's a "moral" point to these things at all. They are activities with practical value. Perhaps like washing your hands before a meal.
I don't see the "sniping" to which your refer. Your "debating" style is very frustrating: you don't show much interest in researching any point for yourself (such as "what's a spiritual director?", a question which a moments research on the Ship would answer), and you don't show much interest in exploring the way in which others use words differently to yourself.
I conjecture that this is related to the "Reformed" caricature I mentioned ealier: you universe is the product of logical deduction from your axioms, and so your "debate" is unable to venture beyond the universe you have defined. The concept of turning an argument back upon its assumptions in a dialectical fashion, so as to provide some advance in knowledge, appears to simply not occur to you.
I said, sincerely, that I'd pray for you. Why did you welcome that? What possible good could prayer do, give that the Almighty has already spoken?
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
for Paul's attack on certain types of spiritual disciplines, we don't need him speaking in triplicate, we already have him in singlicate attacking practises like fasting and the keeping of special days; whilst allowing that it may not in any and every circumstance a sin to do these things.
But, St Paul's words about fasting* have to be considered in the context of our Lord's When ye fast.
Carys
*BTW which particular passage are you thinking of re fasting? Bible Gateway gave me no results for fast in the Pauline Epistles
I guess on special days you are thinking about:
quote:
Galations 4:10
You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
Which is definitely a one-side of a telephone conversation moment. What are these special days and months? Jewish ones? Pagan ones?
and
quote:
Romans 14:5-6**
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
This seems to give us freedom to keep special days or not, giving thanks to the Lord for the one which we do.
**I'm always amused by this passage because I'm a vegetarian!
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hey Adam, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I assure you. As for researching what people have said on other threads about the way they use words like 'spiritual director', I'm not sure that is a reasonable thing to ask. I certainly don't assume it of others regarding words or ideas that I'm expressing. We are operating off very different assumptions about words and their meanings, so I think that occasional questions of clarification are quite important.
As for something having practical value but no moral value, I am not sure I buy that with regard to spiritual matters. If something helps me in my relationship with God, like prayer or some other spiritual discipline, then there's no question that it is a moral good.
But every aspect of such a claim ought to be subjected to intense scrutiny, and I will freely admit to doing it on the basis of my own assumptions. I understand the concept of arguing on the basis of what others assume, but I'm not sure I want to do that. It will be sufficient for me if we articulate the assumptions on which we proceed with clarity, and I hope it will be sufficient for others too. Those assumptions too ought to be subject to scrutiny, and from time to time may prove to be both irreducible and irreconcilable. But I suppose having the discussion will expose that.
What I object to in The Wanderer's approach is an assumption that I am deliberately evading questions that I find difficult. To assert this is a debating tactic I'm not interested in responding to, except to deny.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Carys: with regard to fasting, 2 passages spring to mind just off the top of my head (relevant phrases italicized).
quote:
Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elmental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh
Also
quote:
1 Tim 4:1-4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Both passage seem to be targetting certain forms of spiritual discipline and pointing out that they are actually deleterious to spiritual health.
[ 31. October 2005, 10:58: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
Hey folks - only just caught up with this thread after a weekend away from t'internet.
There seem to have been a few highpoints in the discussion over the weekend (many thanks to Nunc), but I see we're at another rather "bogged down in small print" stage.
Gordon - you would agree that Abraham had a choice to respond to God (even if you feel it misleading to describe it as a 'free' choice).
Surely then, this is a different situation from
the light in Genesis 1, since light has no will and makes no choices at all - free or otherwise.
God called Abraham, Abraham said yes - setting out on the road, putting one foot in front of the other.
God called Jonah, and Jonah ran away.
In both cases, God ultimately got his own way, but it is Abraham's attitude that we would all wish to emulate, and not Jonah's. It seems to me meaningful to describe this attitude (being willing to say 'yes' to God, and put one foot in front of the other on the road God has placed you on) as "being cooperative". (If we are prepared for a moment to use the word the way it is used in normal language, without distracting ourselves by perceived overtones of Semi-Pelagianism).
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I object to in The Wanderer's approach is an assumption that I am deliberately evading questions that I find difficult. To assert this is a debating tactic I'm not interested in responding to, except to deny.
The trouble is that there are various questions that you have been asked which you have never actually answered. This might be because things had moved on by the time you next read the thread and providing a detailed in-quoted response to everyone who'd asked you things would be time consuming* but it is still frustrating.
*No I haven't just wasted 2 hours working time on ship and email, honest!
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Carys: with regard to fasting, 2 passages spring to mind just off the top of my head (relevant phrases italicized).
quote:
Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elmental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh
Also
quote:
1 Tim 4:1-4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Both passage seem to be targetting certain forms of spiritual discipline and pointing out that they are actually deleterious to spiritual health.
Yes, the are pointing to a problem with rules and regulations and a legalistic approach, but I think that it is a far leap from a complaint about people who insist on things like do not taste and on abstitence from certain foods, to saying that Paul is saying don't fast. I'm not at all sure what the background to these comments is, but to me although they dealing with eating, they seem to be about ongoing not eating certain foods, rather than periods of fasting (whether that is from some foods or all food).
Actually this response to me is a case in point to the assertion that you ignore difficult questions. You've answered my footnoted question about which passages you were meaning (which I mainly asked to see where you were coming from because I could not think of any specific anti-fasting comments in Paul and I don't think your suggestions are) but ignored my main point which was how you reconciled Paul's supposed comments against fasting with our Lord saying `when ye fast'? That was the question to which I really wanted the answer. You see to me, our Lord's words trump St Paul's!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
