Read the rest of my post.
I went on to say that I see no reason why someone who doesn't love Christ can still please him in some way.
Just as those that do love Christ can displease or disappoint him.
I'm not being binary here. There seem to be a good number of indications in the scriptures that God is pleased with anyone who does what is right irrespective of whether they've 'signed up' for the full Christian package or not.
That doesn't make Christian faith pointless but it is to say that it's not all about who's in or who's out or my personal salvation / sanctification and stuff everyone else.
Nobody will arrest you for being an asshole father.
Nobody will arrest you for being a terrible husband.
As long as you meet certain external technical requirements - do not assault your partner or children, do not fail to provide the necessities of life for children - you can be as awful as you choose.
Is that the kind of relationship you want?
There’s a fairly significant difference there - I love my wife and kids and actively chose to have them in my life. I wasn’t just saddled with them regardless of how I felt about the situation.
For the vast majority of humanity, I don’t particularly want to have a relationship with them. Certainly not a loving one. Hell, for some people me not actively seeking their imminent end is the best they’re gonna get.
This is one thing I'd like to address separately, if you don't mind. Knowing a little of your struggles from what you've posted, and their similarity to my own during my teens and twenties, I kinda wish you would stop trying. Seriously. Because that's a dead end. But the constant try, try, try made ME wish i was dead before I got dragged out of my legalism and was able to leave it in Jesus' hands.
I had a doctor, a specialist who was also a friend, talk to me about this once. He was RC and he once said wistfully that he wished he had the huge amount of merits (credits) he imagined I and my husband had built up in God's eyes by being missionaries to the urban poor. And I was distressed because I couldn't figure out how to tell him that I'd gladly transfer all that to him, if he wanted it, because it means nothing in our eyes--it's not what we did stuff for, and I'm not even entirely convinced that what we did was good for anything at all in heaven apart from putting a smile on Jesus' face at the moment we do it. We do what we do for the same reason an apple tree bears apples--because that's what comes naturally. And God knows that if it takes that little effort, it shouldn't be worth much in terms of bean-counting, should it? If it's not a sacrifice to drive X to the doctor, then why should it be rewarded as if it were? If it's a positive pleasure to do something that makes Jesus happy (and that's because I love him, and yeah, this gets into sloppy emotional stuff), then shouldn't it be a DE-merit, if anything, because I already have my reward in the moment? Think about that one.
Now it wasn't always that easy, nor was it always that pleasant, earlier in life; but ongoing sanctification means that the further you get down the road, the more likely you are to find it a) simple(r) and b) pleasant(er). So you see how this fucks up the imaginary divine scorecard. If I (at this point of my life) do Y, and so does Joe Blow (who is a new Christian and finds all of this very, very difficult), surely Joe deserves more credit for the same deed. Right? And eventually we reach the point (when I'm a hundred years old or so) where pretty much everything is a delight to do for Jesus' sake--which means I'd be amassing NO credit at all, or maybe losing credit! If the whole credit idea was real, I mean.
It's stuff like this that makes the whole "earn brownie points with God" scheme unworkable to me. Besides the fact that it's totally against Scripture.
And in practical terms, it's a helluva lot less worry and trouble to let the Holy Spirit deal with my sanctification, and just get on with living my life.
I think I would have done better to define sanctification, since I take it by definition that such a thing is impossible to anyone who hates Jesus. The root of the term comes from the Greek "hagiazo," to make holy, that is, to set apart (for divine service and use). I suspect Croesos is taking sanctification to refer to moral improvement, which is generally a feature of Christian sanctification in real life, but is not in fact the main point of it, anymore than taking a shower and brushing one's teeth is the main point of the various kinds of preparation one goes through before one's wedding starts!
Moral filth is obviously not going to be a feature of someone who's well along in Christian sanctification. But Christ cares about far more than just morals, and certainly one of the things he cares about is whether you love or hate him (or his people, for that matter).
Sanctification as presented in the Scripture is very closely related to discipleship--it's not possible to a person who is not a disciple of Jesus, because justification--that is, becoming a disciple of Jesus in the first place, by his action--is the very foundation of it. Without that, nothing else stands.
This is far from comforting for someone like me who believes in, but does not love, Jesus. I don't have the motivation of doing "something that makes Jesus happy" or "putting a smile on Jesus' face" (at least not without the implied "because if you do then he may refrain from destroying you"), much less that "it's a positive pleasure to do something that makes Jesus happy".
And, frankly, if I were to truly "stop trying" then "moral filth" would be very much a feature of my life. Especially if sanctification and salvation are utterly unconnected to anything I do in this life, because that turns everything into a sort of reverse Pascal's Wager - you should ignore God's Law and do whatever you like in this life because either (a) you're going to be Saved anyway or (b) you're going to be Damned anyway, so either way why not just have some fun while you can? After all, if nothing we do can affect our eternal destination then that cuts both ways - no amount of good deeds gets us one step closer to Heaven, but neither do any amount of evil deeds get us one step closer to Hell.
If everybody gets Saved, then what might make Jesus happy is effectively irrelevant to my life - I'll go to Heaven anyway, and if one needs to achieve a certain level of sanctification to fully appreciate being there then I'll have all eternity to sort that out. Conversely, if not everybody will be Saved then by your words that makes the deciding factor whether a given individual loves Jesus or not, which means I'm fucked and may as well get my jollies while I can before my inevitable eternity in Hell.
Your stated position on this thread boils down to "nothing you do matters, as long as you love Jesus". For me, that means guaranteed damnation. If what you say is true, then I can either keep trying to follow God's Law even though my heart isn't in it in the vain hope that that will be enough to spare me the inferno, or just fucking give up and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I die. Which do you recommend?
Frankly, you sound like you're in hell at the moment. And I certainly would be, if I were trying to live under those circumstances. It's heart breaking.
Trying to live morally in order to save yourself is a dead end, nobody can manage that no matter how hard you try. Trusting Jesus to handle your salvation while you get on with being a human being is what the rest of us are doing, because it's what he urged us to do--but if you see him as this horrible punishing taskmaster, good God, no wonder you can't love or trust him, and feel like you need to keep the whole thing in your own hands. Where did you get this awful concept of him? Somebody's got a lot to answer for, I think, and it isn't you.
What follows here is pastoral advice, and you can take or reject it as such as you please. But if I can offer it to you, I'd say this:
Lay aside the whole law-based, "earn your way to salvation' thing, just for a little while. Take what is probably the very scary step of asking Jesus to reveal himself to you as he really is--not as some bastard has apparently taught you to think of him. And then go read the four Gospels, slowly, concentrating a lot more on how he relates to people and less on the doom and gloom passages in his sermons somebody taught you to misinterpet. See how he talks to the disciples, the women, the poor, the foreigners. Look at how he deals with the sick, the grieving, the troubled. For the moment, focus on his actions and his conversations more than on sermons. Just try that. Please?
Perhaps part of the issue here is what is meant by love.
I wanted to pick this one up, because as I understand it, love is, well, a spectrum. There are feelings, even gooey ones, at one end of the spectrum; but at the other end are actions which are mostly or entirely an act of will. And that's good, because there are days when I have the feelings for someone (say, my husband), and other days when I'm just not feeling it and I go through the actions of loving him as an act of will (cooking dinner, reminding him of appointments, etc.)
Now in an ordinary human relationship, love will fluctuate across the spectrum of love, even if the human relationship is with God. that's because I'm the human in it, and I fluctuate. Whether I'm feeling it has more to do with my biology (digestion, nightmares, how much sleep I got, time of the month) than it does with him. When there are two fluctuating humans in a relationship, you get even more variation.
That's fine. There are also some people who are temperamentally inclined to one extreme or the other, and that's okay too. Let them do what they were made to do.
In what follows I realize I'm laying myself open to all sorts of condemnation, because, of course, I cannot prove what I'm saying to those who are determined to see the opposite. But what the hell, I'll go ahead and let you chomp on me.
The particular problem with learning to love God (or to let him love us) is that God is normally invisible and inaudible and our relationship (yes, I said the dirty word, go ahead and crucify me) depends largely on what we come to know of him from Scripture. And as with any book, if you go looking for something (a cruel taskmaster? a monster who is never satisfied, and who basically wants to damn people?), that's likely what you will walk away with when you shut the book. I can argue till I'm blue in the face that this is a misreading of the text; but why would you listen to me, despite my PhD?
If you want to see the character of Jesus, what's needed is an honest look at the text, with the help of the Holy Spirit; and that help is available to anyone who wants it, simply by asking for it from him. But it isn't going to happen in the broad light of publicity on the Ship, with everyone staring and watching while you work through it. No, that's the sort of thing that has to happen on your own, by yourself, in quiet somewhere, with nobody to bug you. For me it was a locked bathroom that got me the privacy. Whatever works.
But I'm never going to be able to argue anybody into loving Jesus, no matter what definition of the word "love" we're using. Because if there's a problem at that level, then THAT is what needs addressing, long before we start talking sanctification. And ideally it would be addressed with a mature Christian friend or leader whom you trust and respect, in person and in privacy, and not on an internet thread. I'm sorry.
Well, I'm not going to have a go at you @Lamb Chopped although, aa you might expect from someone like me who has moved from a Protestant to an Orthodox affiliation I might add a few caveats about 'The Book' being received and apprehended in community rather than in isolation.
Which isn't to dismiss your shut in the lavatory experience any more than it is to disparage Wesley's 'Aldersgate' experience.
If God is personal, then he is always relational.
Which means he's there in the John as much as in a cathedral, a chapel a majestic canyon or a rubbish dump.
I read the Bible differently to how I used to read it, but it was still the Bible then and it's still the Bible now.
The issue, of course, is the extent to which I allow myself to be transformed by it - by grace, of course.
For me, it was reading the New Testament completely alone, speaking to nobody about it, which led me to wonder about Jesus and eventually to pray to Jesus, which led me to trust in Jesus as the living Christ, which led me to take the first steps of faith, later to be confirmed, to be a church member, to study, to minister and to swim ever deeper in the deep pool of mystery which is God.
And as with any book, if you go looking for something (a cruel taskmaster? a monster who is never satisfied, and who basically wants to damn people?), that's likely what you will walk away with when you shut the book.
Any book? I'm pretty sure no one has regarded the potato as cruel taskmaster.
Trying to live morally in order to save yourself may be a dead end, but trying to live morally as a way to accept God's salvation is entirely different.
If we want to commit ourselves to a choice to accept salvation, then living a good life as best we can is simply the best way to live out and strengthen that commitment to the fullest. It doesn't have to be an attempt to earn anything. Knowing that God is the one who changes us is enough to keep us from a sense of self merit.
Nobody will arrest you for being an asshole father.
Nobody will arrest you for being a terrible husband.
As long as you meet certain external technical requirements - do not assault your partner or children, do not fail to provide the necessities of life for children - you can be as awful as you choose.
Is that the kind of relationship you want?
There’s a fairly significant difference there - I love my wife and kids and actively chose to have them in my life. I wasn’t just saddled with them regardless of how I felt about the situation.
For the vast majority of humanity, I don’t particularly want to have a relationship with them. Certainly not a loving one. Hell, for some people me not actively seeking their imminent end is the best they’re gonna get.
Thanks Marvin - this helped crystallise something that had been nagging me about this thread.
If someone wants to use the idea of relationship to frame God-centred existence (for want of a term), they need to be very sure that we all experience and value relationship and relationships in the same way. Because for those of us who experience and value these things differently, it makes it a lot harder.
Trying to live morally in order to save yourself may be a dead end, but trying to live morally as a way to accept God's salvation is entirely different.
I don't see much difference between "you have to do this to earn salvation" and "you have to do this to accept God's salvation".
If someone wants to use the idea of relationship to frame God-centred existence (for want of a term), they need to be very sure that we all experience and value relationship and relationships in the same way. Because for those of us who experience and value these things differently, it makes it a lot harder.
Yeah, I'm an autistic introvert with an anxiety disorder. I think it's fair to say I don't experience and value relationships the same way as most other people.
I'm not sure any of us can say we experience relationships they same way as most people.
I'd have thought there are almost as many - or as many - ways of having relationships as there are people.
Your relationship with your wife and kids, for instance, is bound to be different to anyone else's here or the bloke down the road.
I'm not sure it helps any of us to compare our relationships with those of other people. Nor our own spirituality with other people's, come to that - if we want to put it in those terms.
But we all make these kind of assessments of course.
Nobody will arrest you for being an asshole father.
Nobody will arrest you for being a terrible husband.
As long as you meet certain external technical requirements - do not assault your partner or children, do not fail to provide the necessities of life for children - you can be as awful as you choose.
Is that the kind of relationship you want?
There’s a fairly significant difference there - I love my wife and kids and actively chose to have them in my life. I wasn’t just saddled with them regardless of how I felt about the situation.
For the vast majority of humanity, I don’t particularly want to have a relationship with them. Certainly not a loving one. Hell, for some people me not actively seeking their imminent end is the best they’re gonna get.
If someone wants to use the idea of relationship to frame God-centred existence (for want of a term), they need to be very sure that we all experience and value relationship and relationships in the same way. Because for those of us who experience and value these things differently, it makes it a lot harder.
I don't think that matters all that much for the point @Lamb Chopped was making; as long as the individual concerned can appreciate the difference between a relationship which is purely or largely instrumental and one which isn't.
This reminds me a bit of an issue that comes up occasionally between my husband and me, when someone in the community has very obviously been "using" us to get something they want or need--help with immigration papers, a better job, access to healthcare. And Mr Lamb is indignant sometimes that they aren't even bothering to pretend to be interested in us personally. But me, I just laugh. Because after all, that's what we're there for, is to be used--that's why we came out in the first place. And even those who set out to "use" us sometimes find themselves involved in a real friendship with us, to their own surprise.
I think God is like that, too. Of course we need him--of course we "use" him! I think he's content with that. It's not the final goal, of course; but it's good enough to start with. I mean, what are people supposed to do, pretend they DON'T need his help? Like there's anybody else you can go to? Like he wouldn't see through our pretense in a heartbeat?
I'm also wondering if maybe our idea of a relationship with God is too narrow. Because I've seen perfectly fine relationships that seem to be based on something besides the classical answer of "love"--for example, liking or interest. I mean God being interested IN the person--finding that person worthwhile, enjoying that person, watching to see what he or she does and taking delight in it, that sort of thing. In fact, that's rather the vibe I get from him with regards to myself, a lot of the time. What is she going to do next? It's a legitimate interest for the one who created me. And sometimes a lot less pressuring than love.
But I don't know how that would appear to someone like Marvin. If you don't mind my asking, those of you who are bothered by the emphasis on love relationships--if all you had to cope with was him liking you and being interested in you, would that be a problem?
It's probably just me but I'm a tad uncomfortable with 'the vibe I get from him' type language.
We could end up projecting our own ideas as to how God sees us, as it were. We none of us really know 'how' God sees us, other than with infinite patience, mercy and compassion.
Look, I'm not requiring anybody else to have my experience. In fact, I spend a fair amount of time hiding my experiences, because I know they're offensive to certain folks on the Ship. But really, how far do you expect me to take this?
This is what I'm experiencing. Nobody else has to experience it, nobody even has to believe me. Roll your eyes if you like. Or if you think I'm in some sort of spiritual danger or whatever, feel free to tell me so. But if I've got to police my language every freaking time, it gets old.
Steady on. I wasn't trying to tell you how to post or how to act. I was simply stating that I'm a tad wary of that kind of talk. I said it might just be me and that I might be being picky.
Just because I'm a tad wary of it - as is my Tradition as it were - doesn't mean you have to be. Don't forget that I overdosed on charismatic vibes in times past. Not that I'm dismissing all of that.
I certainly don't find anything you write 'offensive' in this regard.
Nor do I intend to play down the 'affective' aspects of faith.
I think God is like that, too. Of course we need him--of course we "use" him! I think he's content with that. It's not the final goal, of course; but it's good enough to start with.
Right, I was commenting on it narrowly in the context of your previous long post and Marvin's and others response.
Of course all of us are instrumental to start with and we spend our entire lives fighting against that kind of impulse and returning to it because our need is constant, but just like sanctification one would expect very occasional and slight glances of something else as we continue to relate to God (which is where I assume you were going here).
I'm also wondering if maybe our idea of a relationship with God is too narrow. Because I've seen perfectly fine relationships that seem to be based on something besides the classical answer of "love"--for example, liking or interest. I mean God being interested IN the person--finding that person worthwhile, enjoying that person, watching to see what he or she does and taking delight in it, that sort of thing.
Yes, and again that's down to the analogy used - which was that of familial relationships and even there I'd say the healthy answer runs to a wider gamut than merely 'love' in the sense above. In fact; with very young children its often the latter scenario where there's a delight in seeing them discover something very trivial for themselves and watching their wonder.
If someone wants to use the idea of relationship to frame God-centred existence (for want of a term), they need to be very sure that we all experience and value relationship and relationships in the same way. Because for those of us who experience and value these things differently, it makes it a lot harder.
Fair point, and one that deserves to be emphasized especially on those quasi-festivals (Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day) where unwarranted assumptions about familial relationships are often made.
Having said that, it does seem to me from Scripture that Jesus experienced a relationship with God similar to that between trustworthy parent and loving child, and hoped/expected his disciples to share in that experience.
I love my wife and kids and actively chose to have them in my life. I wasn’t just saddled with them regardless of how I felt about the situation.
Awesome!
Yeah, I'm an autistic introvert with an anxiety disorder. I think it's fair to say I don't experience and value relationships the same way as most other people.
Yet you identify the above human connections and emotions as "love."
In your terms, I would say that God actively chooses to have you in God's life. For reasons of God's own, God has said, "Let there be [Marvin the Martian]" and is not just saddled with you. Rather, God chooses to reach out to you.
I don't think the 1600 year old dispute between Pelagius and Augustine has ever been satisfactorily been answered. When Pelagius went to Rome he was appalled by the moral laxity of the Christians there. All living under Augustine's view of original sin, they thought right living to be impossible for depraved, fallen humanity. Pelagius thought that people could choose to do right by act of will.
When Pelagius fled to Carthage, he was hounded by Augustine for daring to disagree with him and eventually condemned by the Pope. I met an Orthodox priest a couple of decades ago, who claimed that Orthodoxy is semi-Pelagian in that santification is entirely by God's grace, but it's necessary for the human will to cooperate with that grace. Lutheran, Calvinists and other close descendants of the German reformation are far more likely to rehash Augustine's arguments because they took the ideas of original sin and total depravity hook line and sinker to the point of being Augustine on steroids.
James wrote "faith without works is dead" for which Luther called it an epistle of straw. I favour the Orthodox, Catholic, and some Anglican view that it's a balance and compromise between the two.
I'm also wondering if maybe our idea of a relationship with God is too narrow. Because I've seen perfectly fine relationships that seem to be based on something besides the classical answer of "love"--for example, liking or interest. I mean God being interested IN the person--finding that person worthwhile, enjoying that person, watching to see what he or she does and taking delight in it, that sort of thing. In fact, that's rather the vibe I get from him with regards to myself, a lot of the time. What is she going to do next? It's a legitimate interest for the one who created me. And sometimes a lot less pressuring than love.
But I don't know how that would appear to someone like Marvin. If you don't mind my asking, those of you who are bothered by the emphasis on love relationships--if all you had to cope with was him liking you and being interested in you, would that be a problem?
For me, these would be easier concepts to process. (Certainly in comparison to "caring about Jesus' feelings", which I struggle to understand.)
I don't think that it's a big issue in itself that different people experience and describe human existence in relation to God (or a relationship with God) in different ways. It becomes more relevant in the context of teaching other people, and the concepts they'll be most able to understand and relate to.
FWIW, @Pease, whilst the theologians and divines in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean were certainly less harsh on Pelagius than St Augustine of Hippo, he is still regarded as a heretic.
The term 'semi-Pelagian' is one I've heard charged against the Orthodox by particular types of neo-Calvinist, but it's not a label I've heard adopted by the Orthodox themselves.
I've learned a lot on these boards from quite Reformed flavoured participants like @Jengie Jon and @Nick Tamen and can see that that particular tradition is not always as deterministic as its critics contend.
I don't know enough about the Lutheran tradition to comment on that but would assume likewise.
But yes, it is fair to say that the Orthodox take a more 'optimistic' view of human potential - through divine grace - than tends to be the case in those traditions where Augustine's views played a more dominant role.
Many Orthodox have a soft-spot for Wesley and see the emphasis on sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition as somewhat (but not quite) similar to the Eastern emphasis on 'theosis'.
I understand there has been some fruitful Lutheran/Orthodox dialogue in recent years. May that continue.
But I think both East and West need to be aware of their own presuppositions and concede that very often we are saying the same sort of thing only from different angles.
That is not to elide differences or pretend they don't exist but it is to say that we can find overlaps and congruence.
Comments
Read the rest of my post.
I went on to say that I see no reason why someone who doesn't love Christ can still please him in some way.
Just as those that do love Christ can displease or disappoint him.
I'm not being binary here. There seem to be a good number of indications in the scriptures that God is pleased with anyone who does what is right irrespective of whether they've 'signed up' for the full Christian package or not.
That doesn't make Christian faith pointless but it is to say that it's not all about who's in or who's out or my personal salvation / sanctification and stuff everyone else.
There’s a fairly significant difference there - I love my wife and kids and actively chose to have them in my life. I wasn’t just saddled with them regardless of how I felt about the situation.
For the vast majority of humanity, I don’t particularly want to have a relationship with them. Certainly not a loving one. Hell, for some people me not actively seeking their imminent end is the best they’re gonna get.
Frankly, you sound like you're in hell at the moment. And I certainly would be, if I were trying to live under those circumstances. It's heart breaking.
Trying to live morally in order to save yourself is a dead end, nobody can manage that no matter how hard you try. Trusting Jesus to handle your salvation while you get on with being a human being is what the rest of us are doing, because it's what he urged us to do--but if you see him as this horrible punishing taskmaster, good God, no wonder you can't love or trust him, and feel like you need to keep the whole thing in your own hands. Where did you get this awful concept of him? Somebody's got a lot to answer for, I think, and it isn't you.
What follows here is pastoral advice, and you can take or reject it as such as you please. But if I can offer it to you, I'd say this:
Lay aside the whole law-based, "earn your way to salvation' thing, just for a little while. Take what is probably the very scary step of asking Jesus to reveal himself to you as he really is--not as some bastard has apparently taught you to think of him. And then go read the four Gospels, slowly, concentrating a lot more on how he relates to people and less on the doom and gloom passages in his sermons somebody taught you to misinterpet. See how he talks to the disciples, the women, the poor, the foreigners. Look at how he deals with the sick, the grieving, the troubled. For the moment, focus on his actions and his conversations more than on sermons. Just try that. Please?
I wanted to pick this one up, because as I understand it, love is, well, a spectrum. There are feelings, even gooey ones, at one end of the spectrum; but at the other end are actions which are mostly or entirely an act of will. And that's good, because there are days when I have the feelings for someone (say, my husband), and other days when I'm just not feeling it and I go through the actions of loving him as an act of will (cooking dinner, reminding him of appointments, etc.)
Now in an ordinary human relationship, love will fluctuate across the spectrum of love, even if the human relationship is with God. that's because I'm the human in it, and I fluctuate. Whether I'm feeling it has more to do with my biology (digestion, nightmares, how much sleep I got, time of the month) than it does with him. When there are two fluctuating humans in a relationship, you get even more variation.
That's fine. There are also some people who are temperamentally inclined to one extreme or the other, and that's okay too. Let them do what they were made to do.
In what follows I realize I'm laying myself open to all sorts of condemnation, because, of course, I cannot prove what I'm saying to those who are determined to see the opposite. But what the hell, I'll go ahead and let you chomp on me.
The particular problem with learning to love God (or to let him love us) is that God is normally invisible and inaudible and our relationship (yes, I said the dirty word, go ahead and crucify me) depends largely on what we come to know of him from Scripture. And as with any book, if you go looking for something (a cruel taskmaster? a monster who is never satisfied, and who basically wants to damn people?), that's likely what you will walk away with when you shut the book. I can argue till I'm blue in the face that this is a misreading of the text; but why would you listen to me, despite my PhD?
If you want to see the character of Jesus, what's needed is an honest look at the text, with the help of the Holy Spirit; and that help is available to anyone who wants it, simply by asking for it from him. But it isn't going to happen in the broad light of publicity on the Ship, with everyone staring and watching while you work through it. No, that's the sort of thing that has to happen on your own, by yourself, in quiet somewhere, with nobody to bug you. For me it was a locked bathroom that got me the privacy. Whatever works.
But I'm never going to be able to argue anybody into loving Jesus, no matter what definition of the word "love" we're using. Because if there's a problem at that level, then THAT is what needs addressing, long before we start talking sanctification. And ideally it would be addressed with a mature Christian friend or leader whom you trust and respect, in person and in privacy, and not on an internet thread. I'm sorry.
Which isn't to dismiss your shut in the lavatory experience any more than it is to disparage Wesley's 'Aldersgate' experience.
If God is personal, then he is always relational.
Which means he's there in the John as much as in a cathedral, a chapel a majestic canyon or a rubbish dump.
I read the Bible differently to how I used to read it, but it was still the Bible then and it's still the Bible now.
The issue, of course, is the extent to which I allow myself to be transformed by it - by grace, of course.
Any book? I'm pretty sure no one has regarded the potato as cruel taskmaster.
Only $5 (plus shipping). Plus how can you resist a book on potato agriculture whose authors can be listed as "Stark, Love"?
If we want to commit ourselves to a choice to accept salvation, then living a good life as best we can is simply the best way to live out and strengthen that commitment to the fullest. It doesn't have to be an attempt to earn anything. Knowing that God is the one who changes us is enough to keep us from a sense of self merit.
I will say that I do have a stark love of potatoes. They’re delicious!
😆😆😆😆😆 🥔
If someone wants to use the idea of relationship to frame God-centred existence (for want of a term), they need to be very sure that we all experience and value relationship and relationships in the same way. Because for those of us who experience and value these things differently, it makes it a lot harder.
I don't see much difference between "you have to do this to earn salvation" and "you have to do this to accept God's salvation".
Yeah, I'm an autistic introvert with an anxiety disorder. I think it's fair to say I don't experience and value relationships the same way as most other people.
I'd have thought there are almost as many - or as many - ways of having relationships as there are people.
Your relationship with your wife and kids, for instance, is bound to be different to anyone else's here or the bloke down the road.
I'm not sure it helps any of us to compare our relationships with those of other people. Nor our own spirituality with other people's, come to that - if we want to put it in those terms.
But we all make these kind of assessments of course.
I don't think that matters all that much for the point @Lamb Chopped was making; as long as the individual concerned can appreciate the difference between a relationship which is purely or largely instrumental and one which isn't.
A relationship which is a means to an end rather than one where relating itself is the main goal.
This reminds me a bit of an issue that comes up occasionally between my husband and me, when someone in the community has very obviously been "using" us to get something they want or need--help with immigration papers, a better job, access to healthcare. And Mr Lamb is indignant sometimes that they aren't even bothering to pretend to be interested in us personally. But me, I just laugh. Because after all, that's what we're there for, is to be used--that's why we came out in the first place. And even those who set out to "use" us sometimes find themselves involved in a real friendship with us, to their own surprise.
I think God is like that, too. Of course we need him--of course we "use" him! I think he's content with that. It's not the final goal, of course; but it's good enough to start with. I mean, what are people supposed to do, pretend they DON'T need his help? Like there's anybody else you can go to? Like he wouldn't see through our pretense in a heartbeat?
I'm also wondering if maybe our idea of a relationship with God is too narrow. Because I've seen perfectly fine relationships that seem to be based on something besides the classical answer of "love"--for example, liking or interest. I mean God being interested IN the person--finding that person worthwhile, enjoying that person, watching to see what he or she does and taking delight in it, that sort of thing. In fact, that's rather the vibe I get from him with regards to myself, a lot of the time. What is she going to do next? It's a legitimate interest for the one who created me. And sometimes a lot less pressuring than love.
But I don't know how that would appear to someone like Marvin. If you don't mind my asking, those of you who are bothered by the emphasis on love relationships--if all you had to cope with was him liking you and being interested in you, would that be a problem?
We could end up projecting our own ideas as to how God sees us, as it were. We none of us really know 'how' God sees us, other than with infinite patience, mercy and compassion.
But perhaps I'm being picky.
This is what I'm experiencing. Nobody else has to experience it, nobody even has to believe me. Roll your eyes if you like. Or if you think I'm in some sort of spiritual danger or whatever, feel free to tell me so. But if I've got to police my language every freaking time, it gets old.
Just because I'm a tad wary of it - as is my Tradition as it were - doesn't mean you have to be. Don't forget that I overdosed on charismatic vibes in times past. Not that I'm dismissing all of that.
I certainly don't find anything you write 'offensive' in this regard.
Nor do I intend to play down the 'affective' aspects of faith.
No offence intended by me either.
Right, I was commenting on it narrowly in the context of your previous long post and Marvin's and others response.
Of course all of us are instrumental to start with and we spend our entire lives fighting against that kind of impulse and returning to it because our need is constant, but just like sanctification one would expect very occasional and slight glances of something else as we continue to relate to God (which is where I assume you were going here).
Yes, and again that's down to the analogy used - which was that of familial relationships and even there I'd say the healthy answer runs to a wider gamut than merely 'love' in the sense above. In fact; with very young children its often the latter scenario where there's a delight in seeing them discover something very trivial for themselves and watching their wonder.
Fair point, and one that deserves to be emphasized especially on those quasi-festivals (Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day) where unwarranted assumptions about familial relationships are often made.
Having said that, it does seem to me from Scripture that Jesus experienced a relationship with God similar to that between trustworthy parent and loving child, and hoped/expected his disciples to share in that experience.
Awesome!
Yet you identify the above human connections and emotions as "love."
In your terms, I would say that God actively chooses to have you in God's life. For reasons of God's own, God has said, "Let there be [Marvin the Martian]" and is not just saddled with you. Rather, God chooses to reach out to you.
When Pelagius fled to Carthage, he was hounded by Augustine for daring to disagree with him and eventually condemned by the Pope. I met an Orthodox priest a couple of decades ago, who claimed that Orthodoxy is semi-Pelagian in that santification is entirely by God's grace, but it's necessary for the human will to cooperate with that grace. Lutheran, Calvinists and other close descendants of the German reformation are far more likely to rehash Augustine's arguments because they took the ideas of original sin and total depravity hook line and sinker to the point of being Augustine on steroids.
James wrote "faith without works is dead" for which Luther called it an epistle of straw. I favour the Orthodox, Catholic, and some Anglican view that it's a balance and compromise between the two.
I don't think that it's a big issue in itself that different people experience and describe human existence in relation to God (or a relationship with God) in different ways. It becomes more relevant in the context of teaching other people, and the concepts they'll be most able to understand and relate to.
The term 'semi-Pelagian' is one I've heard charged against the Orthodox by particular types of neo-Calvinist, but it's not a label I've heard adopted by the Orthodox themselves.
I've learned a lot on these boards from quite Reformed flavoured participants like @Jengie Jon and @Nick Tamen and can see that that particular tradition is not always as deterministic as its critics contend.
I don't know enough about the Lutheran tradition to comment on that but would assume likewise.
But yes, it is fair to say that the Orthodox take a more 'optimistic' view of human potential - through divine grace - than tends to be the case in those traditions where Augustine's views played a more dominant role.
Many Orthodox have a soft-spot for Wesley and see the emphasis on sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition as somewhat (but not quite) similar to the Eastern emphasis on 'theosis'.
I understand there has been some fruitful Lutheran/Orthodox dialogue in recent years. May that continue.
But I think both East and West need to be aware of their own presuppositions and concede that very often we are saying the same sort of thing only from different angles.
That is not to elide differences or pretend they don't exist but it is to say that we can find overlaps and congruence.