Izzyâs comments in red:
When was the last time you all read a lengthy and involved email from me? So give me some slack and allow this exception. You all are great. I have included the thread remarks of Slade and Lance.
Before we close the lid on the box in which we have place brother and dearly departed John Smithson, allow him self defense.
I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course.
And maybe, just maybe, I failed in my end of this exchange we call communication. Allow me to ramble a bit, hoping that I can tie it all together in some kind of meaning conclusion.
I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (Jame's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me. I think that the âconflictâ between James and Paul is imaginaryâa definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood.
Neither do I see a conflict. But I am curious as to why the clue doesn't work from another view -- that James is misunderstood. In my church, brethren run to James to prove that salvation is essentially up to you. The life line has been thrown out and floats near enough to us that all we have to do is reach out and lay hold of it (thus gaining justification via works) It is almost that Jame's comments trump Paul. They never, and I repeat "never," give an explanation for Paul's words to the effect that we "are saved by faith apart from obedience to the law --- apart from obedience to any "law" understanding "law" to mean a "code of ethical conduct."
The fulcrum of my life changed when I decided to define myself by Godâs Word, rather than by the opinion of any human being. I have been horribly independent since that day, many years ago. So blame the Lord. He is the One to which I answer, and the only One whose approval I seek. J
When that kind of thinking is applied to the actuality of who we are, my view of man, I fancy to believe, is in complete accord with God's view because my view has come my way from God. But, of course, we all say that, don't we Chis Barr? I see in the biblical message, a god, the God, who created man in His image and seeks to provide for man;s arrival to that end. I see a god, the God, who valued His creation so much that He is willing to actually participate with His "offspring" in bring them back to Himself. God not only knew from the beginning that man would need help, He knew that man would respond to His ministry of reconciliation. He wants us to be new again. This exploitation of the old man by and through the gracious assistance of God Himself is a wonderful declaration by God of both the value and the confidence He has in His creation and in His ability to bring the task of creation to its desired conclusion.
When I counsel those who are not only messed up but broken to the point of not knowing their true value as a person, I often tell them "stop allowing what you do, your sins, your addictions, to define who you are."
Is the God in Christ that you met in the biblical message indwelling, alive, dynamic -- the force in your life that causes you to be what you were created to become? If "yes," our disagreement is semantical only.
That advice, as it stands alone, is not good enough to effect any real and vital change. It
must be combined another principle. We are defined by creation and the birthing event that extends from Adam and because we are all children of the Almighty God, our worth and who we are is defined by that reality. John, I think the Bible teaches that all are welcome to become children of God, but very few really are.
I believe that we are all children of God in that our Father is the same creator God who invented Adam and Eve. Procreation was His idea. The prodigal son parable gives us the picture that those living in sin -- the prodigal -- are nonetheless children of the Father. Some are saved and some are not. Typically, however, the "child of God" in the biblical message is someone who has come to repentance and has been "added" to the family.
And when we seek other definition, we travel the road to nothingness and destruction.
Amen. We cannot be what we are meant to be without God. Truly.
I would argue that if you agree with this last point, that we are essentially in agreement. "We cannot be what we are meant to be without God." We are meant to be fully ordained and endowed children of the Father through His redemptive work in the Son.
Paul suggests that we can "work out our salvation ... because it is God at work within
us both to will and to accomplish His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12,13). We are children of God. Only those who are born again of the Holy Spirit.
If my explanation above solves the problem, I will leave this alone. In the parable of the prodigal son, assuming it is a parallel to the Christian journey, the prodigal was family, but was in need of rebirth.
He is our partner. And He can accomplish what we cannot. Hitler was a child of God.
When??? He served the devil.
Yes he did but that Master was illegitimate. Hitler has a capacity for the true God. He chose to filled that potential with self service and perversion. Neither of those are life giving and so he died.
His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end. I am a child of
God and that defines what I do and how I am included in eternity. Praise the Lord. For me to deny that reality puts me in the pond of hell in which Hitler finds himself. Life verses destruction.
It is not essence I see but potential and purpose. Could you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean you are not happy with who you are right now, but have hope for your future in Christ?
I possess an essence that goes to my existence. It involves the fact that I am a spiritual being in addition to the finite qualities we see as human. "Potential and purpose" ?? None of us are what we could be -- there is always room for improvement. But I do not seek improvement in order to be saved, rather because I am. James is saying that because faith is real and alive, it will work -- as a result, those works (all benevolent activity in the book of James) are a witness to our faith. I am already saved. That act of forgiveness was full and complete, "once and for all time,") and I truly rest in the shadow of the cross. The continuing flow of the blood gives me all the time in the world to get things right and covers those things that I never will get right.
Nearly two thousand years after the fact, the Bible is what it is -- for me. I do not care
how we got the thing nor do I care to defend it's present form. That makes two of us. It is in my life providentially and is the key source of information for what I do. It has taught me who I am PTL! and has convinced me that what I do is important, critically important, because of who I am. Essence? Nay. Again, I donât understand your meaning. (Duh?) Potential and purpose? Absolutely. Unless, of course, the two concepts are the same. Izzy
John
John again and I am interested in your response.
