 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/20/2004 3:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | Those that look through the threads on mysticism on the OV Forum and "Seeing is Believing" on tearing down walls forum can find the background for this post.
Dr. Boyd, in his book "Seeing is Believing" has what he calls the Holy Spirit inspire fictional anti-events (imaginative re-engineered history contradicting factual history). The actual quotes from the book are below: quote:
Dr. Boyd gives us the factual historical objective truth of an incident in his life. He had a cruel grandmother that didn’t give him a present and called him bad which he recounts on page 117,
“No, Greggie is a bad boy, and bad boys don’t get presents.”
This incident brings pain to his life. Dr. Boyd discovers the techniques of imaginative prayer and applies them on pages 118 through 122, progressing through a series of emotions from grieving to forgiveness. Dr. Boyd claims that Jesus personally leads him through this process. As the process unfolds, we see that what is happening is that Jesus Himself is changing the objective historical record witnessed by Dr. Boyd’s sisters to a different story that never happened. This story evolves into the following account on page 121,
“But this time, instead of seeing the angry wrinkled face of my grandmother, I saw the radiant, joyful face of Jesus. He leaned over the bag and peeked in with a wildly excited smile on his face. Instead of hearing my grandmother say, ‘No, Greggie is a bad boy,’ I heard Jesus exclaim, ‘Oh, of course Greggie gets a present! He is such a good boy!’ He rubbed my head vigorously as he said, ‘It’s a very special gift. That’s why I saved it for last.’ I began hopping and flapping my arms even more excited than before as I looked again into the paper sack. And there I saw a huge red toy airplane.”
We are going to consider this fictional anti-event and compare it with the book of Mormon that claims to be another testimony of Jesus Christ. The book of Mormon claims to be a historical record of the journey of some of the children of Israel to North America and documents their struggles and adventure, with God performing mighty miracles to provide comfort for His people. The sincere believers in Mormon give this revelation to hurting people and encourage them to read it. They tell them that they will know it is true by the burning in their bosom - they will feel it is true. Some of those that have warm feelings reading the book, believe it and find comfort in this God that acted and performed these events for His children. The revelation of this book claims that those who follow it will experience God and the angels and Jesus. Many have followed this book and it has brought great comfort as shown in many strong families, moral lives, and wonderful citizenship of the people of Utah.
As Christians, we have stood against the book of Mormon. A key element of the opposition has been, this book claims historical events that never happened. The narrative of the exodus to North America of the children of Israel never happened. The miracles of God described in the book are imagination, not factual accounts like the Exodus. People who base their faith on the God revealed in this book are basing their faith and finding healing and comfort in a false god, a spiritual god that isn't the factual god recounted in the Bible. Though the Mormons also claim that they believe in the Bible and experience the Holy Spirit and they look to Jesus, Christians believe that these claims are still false, because the book is factually false - a fictional anti-event that contradicts the factual historical record.
The Mormons reply that they have "fruit." It is true that the Mormons have closer families, stronger marriages, more wholesome communities, are often pillars in their companies and communities. As a group, they are more dedicated to their message of comfort and spend two years on the mission field. They have a spiritual and spirit-filled worship and prayer life. All of this is observable but this doesn't compensate for the fact that the book and its historical claims are not true.
Christianity is not a faith that is based on "a burning in our bosom," that is Mormonism. Christianity is based upon the factual record of God's actions and His words being given to men. The ultimate and clearest message from God was when God actually became man and spoke the words of God with a human mouth for human ears to hear. These words were precious, and were written down by men who witnessed them and heard them in order that we could read them and hear them too - and believe. These words were proven true by the greatest act, the one who spoke them claimed that when we killed Him, He would be raised from the dead bodily to prove that what he said was true. This is the message that this man gave us, that He bore our sins and carried our iniquities so that if we believe in what He did for us in our place by His death, we will live eternally, being resurrected ourselves to be with Him.
We believe this because it is the actual factual record that was observed by men, credible witnesses wrote it down for us. We read and believe. Often we also experience a burning in our bosom as we understand the magnitude of this act of love by God Himself. While we enjoy the feelings of comfort, they do not prove our faith or the message is true. They are only valid because our message was factual and true, based upon fact and not imagination.
When we compare the comfort that Dr. Boyd has found in a fictional anti-event that he acknowledges never happened, we see that this concept is very similar to the concept of the Mormons. As science and archeology have been able to investigate the claims made by the book of Mormon and prove them unquestionably false, the Mormons have begun to drift towards an outlook that says that the historical accuracy of the book is secondary. It is the spiritual message that is conveys that is "real" and thus our faith is valid. They have found comfort in their spiritual experiences and consider that more important than if the events ara factual. They claim, "We experience God, so we believe that the book is real and still legitimate spiritual truth." This is why I make the claim above, both Dr Boyd and the Mormons have found comfort offered only in the gospel in fictional anti-events.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/20/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | SPen: YAWN! Get over it. You're ruining your objectivity and credibility. You took your shot. You think its an evil bad boook. You've make your point. Some agree, most disagree. You've run the race. Let it go. Move on with your life. Find another hobby. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/20/2004 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Two things that spenlake has chosen not to respond to:
1. On Page 200 in the "Q&A" section of the book, Boyd says that believing the gospel is how one is saved, not by believing in "resting in Christ." Therefore, spen's contention that Boyd is in this book equating his teaching on resting in Christ with the Gospel itself, is simply unfounded.
2. The fact that Boyd recalls the actual event in question where his grandmother is so cruel (and relates it in the book both as it originally happened and as it appeared to him through "resting in Christ" also reveals that spen is simply mistaken in saying that Boyd is herein teaching people to believe "a false event." Spen seems to think (for reasons unclear to me) that Boyd is teaching a kind of "brainwashing." However, all Boyd is teaching is a way to allow the Lord to heal the psychological and emotional damage of past traumas, by appropriating the grace of Christ, applying the healing touch of Jesus to the wounded soul.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/23/2004 2:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Two things that spenlake has chosen not to respond to:
1. On Page 200 in the "Q&A" section of the book, Boyd says that believing the gospel is how one is saved, not by believing in "resting in Christ." Therefore, spen's contention that Boyd is in this book equating his teaching on resting in Christ with the Gospel itself, is simply unfounded.
2. The fact that Boyd recalls the actual event in question where his grandmother is so cruel (and relates it in the book both as it originally happened and as it appeared to him through "resting in Christ" also reveals that spen is simply mistaken in saying that Boyd is herein teaching people to believe "a false event." Spen seems to think (for reasons unclear to me) that Boyd is teaching a kind of "brainwashing." However, all Boyd is teaching is a way to allow the Lord to heal the psychological and emotional damage of past traumas, by appropriating the grace of Christ, applying the healing touch of Jesus to the wounded soul.
John,
I did address this question once in another post. The fact that Dr. Boyd makes the claim in the quote above is not enough. The false that we are warned of in 1 John 4:1 is not that which denies the gospel but which doesn't confess it. Confessing it is found in the content of what is preached, believed and where we place our trust. The Galatians, would agree with Dr. Boyd when he says, believing the gospel is how one is saved. They had also wandered into error by not continuing in it. They failed to confess it and began to trust in "works." While he attacks the "works," Dr. Boyd then gives us a different substitute, one where we find comfort in fictional anti-events instead fo the factual event. This is NOT confessing the gospel.
If all I had to do was to say the phrase that you quote, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and a host of other defective cults would meet the bar. The content of what is being said must be looked at to find what the good news being preached is actually based in.
When Dr. Boyd claims:
1. Pg. 15, "As with prayer, we have largely forgotten how important imagination is when it comes to experiencing spiritual truth."
2. Pg. 16, "We might say imagination, when guided by the Holy Spirit and submitted to the authority of Scripture, is our main receptor to the spiritual world."
3. Pg. 17, "Chapter 7 outlines an imaginative exercise that I call "resting in Christ."...Resting in Christ positions people to experience Jesus in a 'face to face' manner...Frankly, I know of no other spiritual discipline that is as transforming and as healing as the discipline of resting in Christ."...In Chapter 8 I provide an example from my own life of how the Lord can use our time of resting in Christ to free us from the deceptive messages of traumatic memories."
These quotations claim that the exercise that he has titled "resting in Christ" is the ultimate spiritual exercise to bring freedom from deception. This means the gospel. This is the "good news" that Dr. Boyd is teaching and confessing. It is in this news that he promises us we can experience God and find true freedom. This is BUNK and not supported by the Word of God that was given to us by men who heard the words of God from His human mouth and really did experience Him face to face. If you think otherwise, respond to the challenge to scripturally defend the concept that God inspires fictional anti-events in which we are to find healing, the power to forgive and experience God face to face. You cannot do it because it isn't in the Bible. Believing the gospel that brings us freedom and brings us to Jesus. To claim that his exercise does this is to claim that it is the gospel.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/23/2004 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If you think otherwise, respond to the challenge to scripturally defend the concept that God inspires fictional anti-events in which we are to find healing, the power to forgive and experience God face to face. You cannot do it because it isn't in the Bible. Believing the gospel that brings us freedom and brings us to Jesus. To claim that his exercise does this is to claim that it is the gospel.
Spen,
Continuing to raise this straw man does not make it valid. Boyd is not teaching people that "God inspires fictional anti-events." That is YOUR caricaturization of "resting in Christ," and does not reflect Boyd's actual teaching. Boyd's actual teaching is not that the original memory is replaced, but that through imagination, the emotional trauma of the actual event can be healed.
Your further allegation that Boyd has equated this teaching WITH the Gospel is simply false. You truly need to repent of bearing false witness. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/23/2004 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
As Christians, we have stood against the book of Mormon.
We have? 
quote:
Though the Mormons also claim that they believe in the Bible and experience the Holy Spirit and they look to Jesus, Christians believe that these claims are still false, because the book is factually false - a fictional anti-event that contradicts the factual historical record.
So if a person believes in something that is false, they can't simultaneously believe in something that is true?
quote:
Christianity is based upon the factual record of God's actions and His words being given to men.
How, then, did Christianity exist before the factual record was compiled?
quote:
The ultimate and clearest message from God was when God actually became man and spoke the words of God with a human mouth for human ears to hear.
Hmm. I think that God's words to Adam, Moses, etc., were pretty clear themselves.
quote:
These words were precious, and were written down by men
And also not written down by men. (See, e.g., John 21:25.)
quote:
As science and archeology have been able to investigate the claims made by the book of Mormon and prove them unquestionably false,
There are quite a few Mormon scientists and archaeologists who would disagree with the unquestionability of the proofs of falsity.
quote:
the Mormons have begun to drift towards an outlook that says that the historical accuracy of the book is secondary.
Which Mormons? I've attended Mormon services just about every week for the last 40 years, and I can't recall anyone ever saying in any of those meetings that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is unimportant. Go to the LDS Church's website at lds.org and run a search on the Gospel Library there and see if you can come up with a single statement supporting your claim. There are disbelieving, inactive Mormons just like there are disbelieving, inactive Baptists and disbelieving, inactive Roman Catholics. Of Mormons who are active participants in the faith, only a tiny number are drifting in the direction you claim. They're marginalized dissidents who proclaim their new approach to the Book of Mormon outside official channels. Those among them who are most vociferous in their proclamations tend to lose their membership in the Church.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/23/2004 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
As Christians, we have stood against the book of Mormon.
We have?
quote:
Though the Mormons also claim that they believe in the Bible and experience the Holy Spirit and they look to Jesus, Christians believe that these claims are still false, because the book is factually false - a fictional anti-event that contradicts the factual historical record.
So if a person believes in something that is false, they can't simultaneously believe in something that is true?
quote:
Christianity is based upon the factual record of God's actions and His words being given to men.
How, then, did Christianity exist before the factual record was compiled?
quote:
The ultimate and clearest message from God was when God actually became man and spoke the words of God with a human mouth for human ears to hear.
Hmm. I think that God's words to Adam, Moses, etc., were pretty clear themselves.
quote:
These words were precious, and were written down by men
And also not written down by men. (See, e.g., John 21:25.)
quote:
As science and archeology have been able to investigate the claims made by the book of Mormon and prove them unquestionably false,
There are quite a few Mormon scientists and archaeologists who would disagree with the unquestionability of the proofs of falsity.
quote:
the Mormons have begun to drift towards an outlook that says that the historical accuracy of the book is secondary.
Which Mormons? I've attended Mormon services just about every week for the last 40 years, and I can't recall anyone ever saying in any of those meetings that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is unimportant. Go to the LDS Church's website at lds.org and run a search on the Gospel Library there and see if you can come up with a single statement supporting your claim. There are disbelieving, inactive Mormons just like there are disbelieving, inactive Baptists and disbelieving, inactive Roman Catholics. Of Mormons who are active participants in the faith, only a tiny number are drifting in the direction you claim. They're marginalized dissidents who proclaim their new approach to the Book of Mormon outside official channels. Those among them who are most vociferous in their proclamations tend to lose their membership in the Church.
Chris,
Thank you for your kind post. While I don't believe in the book of Mormon, I appreciate your interaction. In light of the present thread:
- Would you believe the the book of Mormon is the revelation of God if it were proved to be historically innacurate?
- Do the scriptures and/or the book of Mormon support a fictional anti-event as something in which we take comfort, find the power to forgive, and experience God face to face? I would appreciate how you would support your opinion with scripture.
- Do you agree with Dr. Boyd's teachings in the book "Seeing is Believing" that began this thread?
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/23/2004 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Would you believe the the book of Mormon is the revelation of God if it were proved to be historically innacurate?
It's difficult for me to answer that question without parsing the word "inaccurate". Let me say that if there really wasn't a Lehite colony established in the Americas around 600 B.C., it would be hard for me to see how the Book of Mormon would be a revelation of God (in a stronger sense than, say, The Brothers Karamazov is a revelation of God).
quote:
Do the scriptures and/or the book of Mormon support a fictional anti-event as something in which we take comfort, find the power to forgive, and experience God face to face? Do you agree with Dr. Boyd's teachings in the book "Seeing is Believing" that began this thread?
I'm afraid I haven't yet familiarized myself enough with this issue to give a meaningful response.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/23/2004 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: while I appreciate the humor ("we have") even you should recognize that no matter how much Mormons insist that they are Christians, the fact is they are not viewed by any branch of the historical Christian church as Christian, given their denial of the Trinity as articulated by said church. I say this because it is important for dialogue that it be affirmed that there are big differences between the Mormon church and the historic Christian Church and simply insisting that one is a Christian is, to me, simply not being upfront about this fact (whether or not you agree that the historic Christian church is correct is another subject). This is why I believe when open theists dialogue on issues of God's knowledge that they should define what they believe as far as God's sovereighty means. Because they do not believe as the traditional Christian church believes and therefore it is wrong, to me, that we do not start by defining what we mean.
Finally, it should also be noted that the Mormon church started by condemning all other Christian churches as wrong, so one has to wonder what Joesph Smith would think about all this. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/23/2004 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Chris: while I appreciate the humor ("we have") even you should recognize that no matter how much Mormons insist that they are Christians, the fact is they are not viewed by any branch of the historical Christian church as Christian,
I don't take the creeds of the historical Christian church as the standard for what constitutes a Christian, since there were Christians before the Christian church had a history to speak of. Furthermore, it is unclear to me exactly what the historical Christian church is. Was it the church that convened the Council of Trent, or is it the churches whose doctrines were declared anathema by that council? Does it include Copts? Arians? Campbellites? Universalists?
quote:
simply insisting that one is a Christian is, to me, simply not being upfront about this fact (whether or not you agree that the historic Christian church is correct is another subject).
If the historic Christian church is incorrect, why should it have control over the label Christian? My dictionary says a Christian is "1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." I fully accept those definitions.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/23/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Chris says: If the historic Christian church is incorrect, why should it have control over the label Christian? My dictionary says a Christian is "1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." I fully accept those definitions
The label "Christian" is never a standard by which God will judge us. Ultimately, when we appear before the throne it isn't labels that will matter but the truth behind the labels and the essence of our faith itself. Christology will be a central concept, even if it isn't labeled by that word. Those who confidently stood in from of the throne in Matt 7:21 and called Him Lord, were surprised to be excluded from Heaven.
I appreciate you straight talking forwardness, Chris. It is honest. I believe that our disagreement would hinge upon the validity of the Book of Mormon and if it was actually the Word of God. If we disagree on this, the rest of the disagreements follow. The Jesus that you follow is also described in the Book of Mormon which is another revelation of Jesus Christ. The one that I believe in is Jesus the Christ, revealed in the Canon of the Gospels through to the book of Revelation, excluding the book of Mormon and its teachings. I believe that once the eyewitnesses of those who heard and saw and expereinced Christ in the flesh died, there were no new authoritative apostles with additional authoritative testimonies or revelations of Christ. These ended with the death of John and the book is closed until the end.
This is a central point in the differences between the Reformers and the Catholic Church. The Catholics (with various limitations from time to time) believe that the Pope can still speak his own words authoritatively for God. He can declare actions/inactions sin that the Bible doesn't. Once this question of "who speaks authoritatively for God" becomes open, then Joseph Smith's revelations on behalf of God are as valid in themselves as the Pope's are. Then the modern "apostles" like C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner, Bill Hamon etc. become legitimate as well - freestyle authoritative revelation. This leads us to a "spiritual Jesus" that enables us all to speak for God, at least to ourselves in our imaginations. To the extent we do this, it is deluding and destructive and wandering from the words given to us by men who actaully heard the words of God from the lips of a man. This, neither Joseph Smith nor the Pope can claim.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
saintpaulrez
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 4/23/2004 9:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Feelingahole says to SPen: "YAWN! Get over it. You're ruining your objectivity and credibility. You took your shot. You think its an evil bad boook. You've make your point. Some agree, most disagree. You've run the race. Let it go. Move on with your life. Find another hobby."
Oh, I see it's not just me who's the brunt of rudeness. I wonder if anyone else thinks (or maybe knows)that feelingahole is the old "honorman." Sure sounds the same. Hey, you try to figure out who I am and I do the same!
Spen, again, I realize that when you posted, you had no idea someone like me would be reading, but I do appreciate what you said. I have not read Boyd's prayer book, nor will I... the whole term "Imaginative prayer" gives me chills and is a scary thought... but goes right in line with my feelings that open theism is a feelings based theology. But anyways, what you said was very good, in my opinion (and seeing as I'm such a "messed up" person with an "axe to grind" I suppose that's not saying much!
And CHRIS, I believe much the same as Spen re: Mormonism, but I am truly, truly amazed at your graciousness of reply to him. It says ALOT about you that you did not come back in defensiveness or rudeness but were able to discuss your beliefs with maturity void of put-downs, etc. That is truly an example that I hope someday the open theists here will remember. It honestly speaks volumes about you that you can post like you did even though things were said about Mormonism that might have offended you (and maybe they did but you handled yourself well).
Well, that's offtopic, but I wanted to mention that to you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/24/2004 1:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
spenlake: Dr. Boyd gives us the factual historical objective truth of an incident in his life. He had a cruel grandmother that didn’t give him a present and called him bad which he recounts on page 117,
“No, Greggie is a bad boy, and bad boys don’t get presents.”
This incident brings pain to his life. Dr. Boyd discovers the techniques of imaginative prayer and applies them on pages 118 through 122, progressing through a series of emotions from grieving to forgiveness. Dr. Boyd claims that Jesus personally leads him through this process. As the process unfolds, we see that what is happening is that Jesus Himself is changing the objective historical record witnessed by Dr. Boyd’s sisters to a different story that never happened. This story evolves into the following account on page 121,
“But this time, instead of seeing the angry wrinkled face of my grandmother, I saw the radiant, joyful face of Jesus. He leaned over the bag and peeked in with a wildly excited smile on his face. Instead of hearing my grandmother say, ‘No, Greggie is a bad boy,’ I heard Jesus exclaim, ‘Oh, of course Greggie gets a present! He is such a good boy!’ He rubbed my head vigorously as he said, ‘It’s a very special gift. That’s why I saved it for last.’ I began hopping and flapping my arms even more excited than before as I looked again into the paper sack. And there I saw a huge red toy airplane.”
Hi spenlake!
I haven’t been a part of this whole discussion. Been into other stuff. But I’ve dropped in a time or two to “peek.” I’d like to respond a bit if I might.
I completely appreciate your concern for objective truth, the authority of Scripture, and the Christ of the gospels. I share that concern and think I defend these things also when I’m in a place to do so and can. But I think you’re missing the point. Take Boyd’s experience as a child that you comment on. What’s objective is that his grandmother devalued and belittled him and this scar influence the way he perceived his own value and place in the world.
As I see it, there’s more to the objective event than simply “Greg’s grandmother failed to love and value him in telling him he was a bad boy” and imaginative prayer is a way of discovering what other aspects of the objective event we missed when we experienced it the first time. What aspect do I mean? I mean Christ’s presence, purpose, and participation in the historical event itself. It is just as truly a part of what constitutes the “objective event” (unnoticed by Greg at the time) that Christ was in fact PRESENT when his grandmother spoke those hurtful influential words as are her hurtful words part of what constitutes the objective event. Furthermore, that Christ was not only present but was redemptively at work in the situation doing what he could to prevent the wound is as much a part of what constitutes the objective event as are his grandmother’s hurtful words. Lastly, that Christ himself grieved with Greg over his grandmother's treatment of him is as much a part of what constitutes the objective historical event as is her treatment of him.
Having said that, in imaginative prayer we go back and (this is important) based on the authority of the gospel, based on the Christ who hung on the cross for us, THEN discover a side to the objective historical event that we missed the first time we experienced it. Christ takes us back and shows us he WAS there, he DID work for us, and he SHARES in our grief. That presence, that work, and that grief are objective events (or rather, are part of the objective event), no less objective than the grandmother's treatment, etc. In discovering these we see the event for what IT REALLY WAS. We are not fantasizing what is not real. It is the reality of Christ’s presence, purpose, and participation in the historical event which forms the basis upon which Greg (or any of us) can learn to relate to past experiences differently, redefining their meaning based on having learned more of what REALLY happened than he previously knew.
Imagination comes in, yes. But imagination only facilitates our discovering Christ’s presence, purpose, and participation in painful events of our past.
I experienced something similar. For more than twenty years I was unable to cry. I was tough. I was hard. I was hurting, but I wouldn’t cry. Let me tell you why. Growing up as a young boy, my five older brothers and sisters constantly made fun of me when I cried. Cry baby! Wimp! Sissy! Even my parents. Eventually I learned how not to cry. I told myself, “They’ll never see me cry again. They’ll never make fun of me again.” I simply never gave them an opporunity to made fun of me anymore.
So much for objective historical events, eh? Actually, no. There’s more to all their treatment of me that’s objective and historical. And it’s Christ’s presence, activity, and participation in my hurt and grief. How did I discover that? Imagination. A good friend (yes, a friend) who is a member of this board sat up with me one night chatting. She said, “Wanna try something?” I said, “Sure.” See said, “Imagine yourself alone in a big movie theatre. Bring up all those times your family made fun of your, devalued you, and belittled you for crying. Put them all up there.” So I did. I ran all the objective historical tapes I had on my mind’s hard drive. It hurt to relive it. “OK,” she said, “now imagine Jesus walking into the theatre and sitting down next to you.” Imagination. “Imagine Jesus watching all those films from your memories of hurt and pain,” she said. And I did. “Now,” she said, “Jesus wants to show you something.” I said “What?” She said, “He wants you to see HIM in all of those memories. Put Jesus in those memories. Picture him there, with you, when you were made fun of.” Wow. “Based on what you know of Jesus from the gospels, his life and works, his giving his life for you,” she asked, “how do you think Jesus felt at your being made fun of?” Well, that was easy. Jesus was grieved at what my family did to me. Jesus wasn’t on their side. Jesus was hurting with me. Jesus was asking them to stop. As I put THAT up on the screen of my imagination, I discovered what was as much a part of the objective event as my family’s treatment, and I was set free. I can cry now! As I imagined Jesus sitting next to me in the theatre replaying those painful memories, Jesus actually turned to me and said, “I was there Tom. I never left you. I grieved over your hurt and held you in my arms. You don’t have to be afraid of crying. It’s cool to cry.” There’s more, but just more of the same thing.
I’m not a psychologist and I haven’t read Doc’s book, but I have talked with him about this sort of thing over a meal or two. It seems to be that this sort of thing is a perfectly legitimate use of the imagination based on the authority of the gospels’ presentation of who Jesus was and is and is all Doc is essentially encouraging us to do. Reality is important. If I didn’t have an inspired revelation of God in Christ via the scriptures, I wouldn’t have reason for believing Jesus was there, was involved for me, and grieved with me when I was mistreated. But imagination is important as well. It helps us redefine the events in our memories by bringing Christ into them and revealing the larger objective reality that we missed when we went through the experience: Christ was there (Presence), Christ was working for us (Purpose), and Christ grieved (and grieves) with us (Participation).
As far as I can tell, Evangelicals don't know what to do with the imagination. They've offered next to nothing on how to integrate the imagination with faith and healing.
So, spenlake, can we fully expect that after laying waste to Doc's book you'll write one of your own telling us how to do it?
One last comment (one I made earlier I think). Imagiative prayer has nothing to do with confirming the truth or falsity of open theism. They're two different things. Yet I get the feeling from you and from several who have agreed with you that somehow disproving Doc's particular views on imaginative prayer translate into disproving open theism, and that's a mistake.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/24/2004 4:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I appreciated your cogent presentation of Dr. Boyd's position and beliefs. I believe the events that you describe regarding your imaginary movie theater and their affect on you. I also believe that there are disconnects between the concepts you are supporting and scriptures. They may be useful tools in psychology and therapies, but they are not the gospel. I have taken the following paragraphs from your post below: quote:
I completely appreciate your concern for objective truth, the authority of Scripture, and the Christ of the gospels. I share that concern and think I defend these things also when I’m in a place to do so and can. But I think you’re missing the point. Take Boyd’s experience as a child that you comment on. What’s objective is that his grandmother devalued and belittled him and this scar influence the way he perceived his own value and place in the world.
As I see it, there’s more to the objective event than simply “Greg’s grandmother failed to love and value him in telling him he was a bad boy” and imaginative prayer is a way of discovering what other aspects of the objective event we missed when we experienced it the first time. What aspect do I mean? I mean Christ’s presence, purpose, and participation in the historical event itself. It is just as truly a part of what constitutes the “objective event” (unnoticed by Greg at the time) that Christ was in fact PRESENT when his grandmother spoke those hurtful influential words as are her hurtful words part of what constitutes the objective event. Furthermore, that Christ was not only present but was redemptively at work in the situation doing what he could to prevent the wound is as much a part of what constitutes the objective event as are his grandmother’s hurtful words. Lastly, that Christ himself grieved with Greg over his grandmother's treatment of him is as much a part of what constitutes the objective historical event as is her treatment of him.
Having said that, in imaginative prayer we go back and (this is important) based on the authority of the gospel, based on the Christ who hung on the cross for us, THEN discover a side to the objective historical event that we missed the first time we experienced it. Christ takes us back and shows us he WAS there, he DID work for us, and he SHARES in our grief. That presence, that work, and that grief are objective events (or rather, are part of the objective event), no less objective than the grandmother's treatment, etc. In discovering these we see the event for what IT REALLY WAS. We are not fantasizing what is not real. It is the reality of Christ’s presence, purpose, and participation in the historical event which forms the basis upon which Greg (or any of us) can learn to relate to past experiences differently, redefining their meaning based on having learned more of what REALLY happened than he previously knew.
There is an element regarding looking at life from the objective scriptural perspective that I indeed agree with. You mention this, "Having said that, in imaginative prayer we go back and (this is important) based on the authority of the gospel, based on the Christ who hung on the cross for us, THEN discover a side to the objective historical event that we missed the first time we experienced it." In as much as we "remember" the factual event in light of or against the backdrop of the factual work of Christ on the cross, I am in agreement with you. The objective truth of the gospel and the perspective we are to have was commanded to us by Peter (who knew the real Jesus, not an imaginary one). This Jesus when He was reviled and called bad "kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" and "He did not revile in return." Peter commands us to follow in His example, not to rebuke grandmothers. If we follow this example, there is no "fictional anti-event" but the review of a factual one that doesn't change as we commit ourselves to the loving sovereignty of God. It is simply viewed from the perspective that we have a loving Christ that loved and we entrust ourselves to the one who judges righteously.
Dr. Boyd and his example he gives us in the book goes farther than this and leaves the gospel truth through a spirit inspired fiction. This is much different than changing the perspective, it has the truth evolve into fiction.
There is a fundamental disconnect between what you state and what I believe is supported by scripture. I think that it is most clear in your statement, "Lastly, that Christ himself grieved with Greg over his grandmother's treatment of him is as much a part of what constitutes the objective historical event as is her treatment of him." I am certain Christ objectively grieves over all sins, including the boy Greg's. However, in light of 1 Peter 2:21, I don't see Jesus taking sides and encouraging boys to rebuke their authorities over lack of presents and then joining in Himself. In a conflict between two people over material goods I think of Luke 12:13, "Someone in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” But He said to him, “Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?” What would little Greg have felt if instead of a red airplane, the gift of Jesus was red blood that covered all of Greggie’s sins? This would be protection and comfort from the all the accusations of being “bad” that could assail him. He would be clean with the righteousness of Christ and who then could call him "bad?" This imaginary Jesus that comforts Dr. Boyd encourages him to revile his grandmother for freedom and gives him a plane. Which one is scriptural?
I think that I find a strange confusion in your concept of objective/subjective. You call objective, “the way he perceived his own value and place in the world.” Internal perceptions are not objective, but subjective. This is a core difference. The factual event was objective. The words spoken were objective. The values behind the words and the feelings that they inspired were subjective. In your statement you have muddled these.
I don't think that your concept of Jesus grieving over the grandmother's treatment of Greg is as central or one-sided as you make it seem. I believe that Jesus would grieve over the sins of the grandmother as well as the sins of Greg, his sisters, etc. Jesus grieves over all sin and the condition of all sinners. To limit His grief to a single party in a conflict between two sinners doesn't seem scriptural but playing favorites. It seems more like a hyper-Calvinist view that I reject. While Jesus grieves over sins, His only solution was to bear these away and resolved the problem on the cross. In contrast to your focus on Jesus sharing Greg's abuse from his grandmother, I find that scripture calls us to share in and focus on the sufferings of Christ. This concept is much different that yours - and it is supported by scripture. It is Christ's sufferings that should be our focus and not our own. I think that your position here becomes weak and flimsy.
1 Peter 2:21 "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls."
1 Co 1:7 "our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort."
Phil 4:3 "our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort."
Phil 4:14 "Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction."
Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions."
Heb 10:32 "But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one."
Hebrews 12:10 "For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness."
1 Peter 4:13 "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/24/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake: In as much as we "remember" the factual event in light of or against the backdrop of the factual work of Christ on the cross, I am in agreement with you.
Tom: Good! What I’m saying is that Christ’s presence and participation are part of every factual event.
Spenlake: The objective truth of the gospel and perspective we are to have was commanded to us by Peter (who knew the real Jesus, not an imaginary one). This Jesus when He was reviled and called bad "kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" and "He did not revile in return." Peter commands us to follow in His example, not to rebuke grandmothers.
Tom: At least TRY to say something about God having compassion with the suffering of children. Yes, little Greg had his sins to confess to God too. As I experienced healing through what I described above I also had to confess resentment against my family. That doesn’t negate the objective presence of Christ in Greg’s experience as a child or Christ’s grieving with him in response to his grandmother’s treatment. So the objective truth of the gospel we are to have is not only revealed in Jesus’ response to suffering, but it’s revealed in Jesus’ suffering with the innocent.
Spenlake: Dr. Boyd and his example he gives us in the book goes farther than this…
Tom: Based on what you’ve provided thus far of his book (I don’t have it), it doesn’t look like he goes farther than this.
Spenlake: There is a fundamental disconnect between what you state and what I believe is supported by scripture. I think that it is most clear in your statement, "Lastly, that Christ himself grieved with Greg over his grandmother's treatment of him is as much a part of what constitutes the objective historical event as is her treatment of him." I am certain Christ objectively grieves over all sins, including the boy Greg's.
Tom: One doesn’t “grieve objectively” spenlake. It’s a rather subjective experience. I’m sure you grieved before. You don’t grieve on paper or in a textbook. You do it in your emotions where you hurt. I imagine this is essentially true for God as well (unless you want to deny God any subjective “felt” experience). Secondly, Jesus doesn’t just grieve OVER our sin, he also grieves WITH those who are sinned against, and THAT, I suggest is completely absent from your view of things which in turn is why I think you have such a problem with Doc.
Spenlake: However, in light of 1 Peter 2:21, I don't see Jesus taking sides and encouraging boys to rebuke their authorities over lack of presents and then joining in Himself.
Tom: In the case of evil being committed against an innocent part, say, a child, I think we have every biblical justification for believe God is on the child’s side. God does choose sides sometimes. He also loves and wants to heal the perpetrator I’m sure. But in terms of the specifics of the event, God is against the grandmother’s speaking in an unloving manner and FOR the child’s being spoken to in a loving manner. Can you at least concede this much? If so, then you have an opportunity to distinguish between God’s grieving OVER our sin (which he does) and God’s grieving and suffering WITH those who are sinned against, say, an innocent child.
I don’t know Greg Boyd very well, but I know him well enough to know he doesn’t encourage people to imagine themselves going back in time to take their revenge out on people who mistreated them with Christ looking on. If you’re getting that from some specific text in his book, paste up it bro and let’s have a look.
Spenlake: What would little Greg have felt if instead of a red airplane, the gift of Jesus was red blood that covered all of Greggie’s sins?
Tom: Does Greg deny that Christ’s death is the greatest healing power? No. Does he suggest that the red airplane supplants the blood of Christ and becomes a new self-made gospel (which is what I hear you arguing he does)? No. I don’t think the gospel amounts to Jesus hugging me in a theater either, but that’s where my imagination took me. Do you honestly think Boyd believes the gospel is nothing other than a fictional red-plane that he imagines to be real?
Spenlake: I think that I find a strange confusion in your concept of objective/subjective. You call objective, “the way he perceived his own value and place in the world.” Internal perceptions are not objective, but subjective. This is a core difference. The factual event was objective. The words spoken were objective. The values behind the words and the feelings that they inspired were subjective. In your statement you have muddled these.
Tom: Let me unmuddle them for you. “The way Greg perceived his own value and place in the world” is of course a subjective perception and judgment that Greg made. But he made it. Making it, judging himself to be less than valuable and loving, is a historical event. It happened. It was subjectively made. But it’s objective history. Same is true of the grandmother’s treatment of Greg. Her valuation of Greg was as subjective as Greg’s response. She expresses that with hurtful and unloving words. That she spoke words x, y, and z may be objectively the case. But they express her subjective (and unloving) valuation of Greg. It all constitutes the “event” of Greg’s history. You seem to think “subjective” means “unhistorical” and so dismiss it as unimportant. But there is no objective truth or event that is not subjectively experienced by us. Not even the truth of the gospel. So give subjectivity a break.
Spenlake: I don't think that your concept of Jesus grieving over the grandmother's treatment of Greg is as central or one-sided as you make it seem.
Tom: It wouldn’t be to you. You weren’t there. It wasn’t your grandmother. And you weren’t handicapped by the experience.
Spenlake: I believe that Jesus would grieve over the sins of the grandmother as well as the sins of Greg, his sisters, etc. Jesus grieves over all sin and the condition of all sinners.
Tom: Yes, of course. Jesus grieves over all sin. And he grieves with all those who suffer innocently. But that Greg is a sinner, and that Jesus grieves equally over all those who sin and with all those who are sinned against doesn’t change the fact that Jesus grieved(s) with Greg over his grandmother’s treatment of him. I’m rather surprised that you can’t bring yourself to admit this, whatever else you might think of Boyd. Are there children in the world who suffer innocently or not? Does Jesus grieve and suffer with them?
Spenlake: To limit His grief to a single party in a conflict between two sinners doesn't seem scriptural but playing favorites.
Tom: I’m not limiting God’s grief to a single party. I’m just recognizing that it genuinely embraces Greg’s suffering in spite of the fact that he was a little sinner and that Greg’s going back to see Christ in the event having compassion on him as a child is healing and wonderful in spite of the fact that there's much he must get forgiveness for as well. I didn’t suggest that it entails seeing Christ beating up on Greg’s grandmother while Greg watched on cheering.
Spenlake: It seems more like a hyper-Calvinist view that I reject.
Tom: Now that’s funny! I don’t see how a hyper-Calvinist can make any sense of God grieving over anything.
Spenlake: While Jesus grieves over sins…
Tom: You keep saying Jesus grieves over sin, and I perfectly agree that he does. Can you also agree that Jesus grieves WITH those who are sinned against? WITH those who suffer innocently? Or do you deny the category?
Spenlake: His only solution was to bear these away and resolved the problem on the cross. In contrast to your focus on Jesus sharing Greg's abuse from his grandmother, I find that scripture calls us to share in and focus on the sufferings of Christ. This concept is much different that yours…
Tom: Actually it's pretty close to what I’m saying. Christ bore our suffering on the cross. He bore the mean hurtful words Greg’s grandmother spoke to him on the cross. He also bore all the sinful ways Greg developed of dealing with the pain of having been spoken to by her in such a way. It’s not anything or anyone OTHER than the suffering Christ of the gospels, hanging on the cross for us, who we take into our past memories and relive them with.
Spenlake: It is Christ's sufferings that should be our focus and not our own. I think that your position here becomes weak and flimsy.
Tom: Whose sin did he carry? Whose innocent suffering did he embrace on the cross? Ours. Yes, by all means, focus on Christ’s sufferings. But never separate them from our own. Are you suggesting that we totally ignore an innocent child’s suffering? How is the connection between Christ’s sufferings and an innocent child’s sufferings to be made if not by that child (as a child or later as an adult) revisiting the event WITH the Christ of the cross, seeing Christ there suffering with him via the cross, objectively and historically, hearing Christ say “I was with you when she said you weren’t worth much. But that’s never been my opinion of you. I took your suffering into myself on the cross. All the sinful ways of dealing with that pain that you later devised, I took that to the cross too. Even all the pain and suffering that made your grandmother an unloving person, I took that into myself too. So get your value from me and my words and not from your grandmother’s words.”
Nothing of the objectivity of the gospel and nothing of Jesus’ historical uniqueness and death for us is sacrificed if we claim that Jesus was grieved WITH Greg WHENn his grandmother spoke unloving to him and that this is part of what defines the objective reality/factual event of Greg’s life. Far from undermining it, we affirm the healing power of the gospel with we insist that Christ is really and truly part of the objective reality that constitutes every historical event.
If this is all weak and flimsy to you, so be it.
Spenlake: There is an element regarding looking at life from the objective scriptural perspective that I indeed agree with. You mention this, "Having said that, in imaginative prayer we go back and (this is important) based on the authority of the gospel, based on the Christ who hung on the cross for us, THEN discover a side to the objective historical event that we missed the first time we experienced it." In as much as we "remember" the factual event in light of or against the backdrop of the factual work of Christ on the cross, I am in agreement with you.
Tom: OK good. But there something important to “remembering” our own history against the backdrop of the factual work of Christ that I think you’re missing, and maybe you find it uncomfortable agreeing to (assuming you’d agree) because it would mean lightening up on Boyd, and here it is: Christ’s death is not JUST the “historical backdrop” to our sufferings. It is that. There is a real event in history. But we connect the two and find healing when we make the discovery (as opposed to invent the fantasy) that the Christ who suffered historically 2,000 years ago was actually, historically present in MY history just as certainly as I was there. When I make THAT connection, I get free. If you can get free without making that discovery, I’m happy for ya. Some of us can’t, and Christ is happy to show us that he really was there with all the healing power of his suffering for us when we were hurt.
Spenlake: The objective truth of the gospel and perspective we are to have was commanded to us by Peter (who knew the real Jesus, not an imaginary one). This Jesus when He was reviled and called bad "kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" and "He did not revile in return." Peter commands us to follow in His example, not to rebuke grandmothers.
Tom: Yes, of course, we are SUPPOSED to be as loving and perfect in our response to evil as Jesus was. We don’t always score so well. And we are forgiven. But you seem to think because we SHOULD respond perfectly to evil that hurts us that we are to believe Jesus is NOT historically present when innocent children suffer, grieving WITH them (not just grieving over the sin of the perpetrator). Nobody is suggesting that we imagine Jesus encouraging us to rebuke other people (hey, although Paul rebuked Peter and I’m sure that was cool! But let’s not go there). What we’re suggesting is that in discovering (through imaging a theater like I did, or through some other use of the imagination) that the Christ of the gospels was historically present, active and with us, in the events of our past we re-envision history, see it for it REALLY was (as opposed to what we’ve falsely been thinking about history all our lives—now THERE’S the fantasy if you want one), and find healing. Sure, we also revisit our past and re-envision all the sinful things we said and did to others as well, in which case we discover that we have hurt Christ, we put him on the cross. Both are valid. I hear you suggesting that since we’re sinners, since we’ve done hurtful things to others, since we’ve failed to obey the “command” of Peter to respond to life perfectly and holy as Christ did, we have no place as perpetrators of evil going back and seeing Christ grieving WITH US when we were on the receiving end of unloving acts.
Spenlake: …there is no "fictional anti-event" but the review of a factual one that doesn't change as we commit ourselves to the loving sovereignty of God.
Tom: Call it what you want (anti-smanti event, I don’t care). What’s reviewed IS the factual event (provided you concede that the facts of what happened include Christ’s present, activity, and grief with victims of sin). But HOW it’s reviewed can be very much a matter of imagination and, I would argue, requires the use of the imagination (for we did not recognize Christ in the historical event when we experienced it the first time and we MUST recognize his presence there now). Whatever gets that history up and reviewed. I sat in an empty theater. That’s a valid use of imagination.
Spenlake: It is simply viewed from the perspective that we have a loving Christ that loved and we entrust ourselves to the one who judges righteously.
Tom: Well, you can boil it down propositionally/theologically that simply if you like. But we can’t “view” it that simply if imagination is to help us come to terms with the fact that Jesus is the missing part of our history.
Spenlake: Dr. Boyd and his example he gives us in the book goes farther than this and leaves the gospel truth through a spirit inspired fiction. This is much different than changing the perspective, it has the truth evolve into fiction.
Tom: Haven’t read it, so I don’t know. But I don’t see anything in what you quoted from his book that suggests to me he’s gone too far.
Well, I’m rambling on. Sorry. I don’t have anything else to contribute. The rest of ya can carry on. I’m done.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/24/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom, Below you challenge me to prove it.
quote:
Tom: I don’t know Greg Boyd very well, but I know him well enough to know he doesn’t encourage people to imagine themselves going back in time to take their revenge out on people who mistreated them with Christ looking on. If you’re getting that from some specific text in his book, paste up it bro and let’s have a look.
Tom: I’m not limiting God’s grief to a single party. I’m just recognizing that it genuinely embraces Greg’s suffering in spite of the fact that he was a little sinner and that Greg’s going back to see Christ in the event having compassion on his as a child is healing and wonderful. I didn’t suggest that it entails seeing Christ beating up on Greg’s grandmother while Greg watched on cheering.
....
Spenlake: The objective truth of the gospel and perspective we are to have was commanded to us by Peter (who knew the real Jesus, not an imaginary one). This Jesus when He was reviled and called bad "kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" and "He did not revile in return." Peter commands us to follow in His example, not to rebuke grandmothers.
Tom: Yes, of course, we are SUPPOSED to be as loving and perfect in our response to evil as Jesus was. We don’t always score so well. And we are forgiven. But you seem to think because we SHOULD respond perfectly to evil that hurts us that we are to believe Jesus is NOT historically present when innocent children suffer, grieving WITH them (not just grieving over the sin of the perpetrator). Nobody is suggesting that we imagine Jesus encouraging us to rebuke other people (hey, although Paul rebuked Peter and I’m sure that was cool! But let’s not go there). What we’re suggesting is that in discovering (through imaging a theater like I did, or through some other use of the imagination) that the Christ of the gospels was historically present, active and with us, in the events of our past we re-envision history, see it for it REALLY was (as opposed to what we’ve falsely been thinking about history all our lives—now THERE’S the fantasy if you want one), and find healing. Sure, we also revisit our past and re-envision all the sinful things we said and did to others as well, in which case we discover that we have hurt Christ, we put him on the cross. Both are valid. I hear you suggesting that since we’re sinners, since we’ve done hurtful things to others, since we’ve failed to obey the “command” of Peter to respond to life perfectly and holy as Christ did, we have no place as perpetrators of evil going back and seeing Christ grieving WITH US when we were on the receiving end of unloving acts.
Tom,
The following quote from Dr. Boyd's book seems to illustrate this point.
Page 120
"At this point the Lord knelt down beside me as I was sadly looking into the empty bag and feeling afraid to talk. He grabbed the hand of the little boy and, with a very gentle voice, began to tell him what to say. Jesus reassured him that it was safe to do this and that he wouldn't be punished for anything he said, because Jesus loves truth. I sheepishly looked up from the bag into my grandmother's scary mean face and began to repeat what Jesus was telling me to say.
At first my words were quiet and tentative. But as I gripped the strong hand of Jesus tightly, I soon became more courageous and more forceful in my tone of voice. Before too long, I was talking without Jesus' prompting. My words were angry but very beautiful and very liberating. 'Thats not true!' I said. 'I'm not a bad boy. I'm not! Jesus says so.' In a different time I added with strong righteous indignation, 'You're a bad grandma for doing this to me.' Jesus made me, not you. And He says I deserve a present. Jesus then joined me in rebuking my grandmother with a stern voice."
This is not exactly your statement, "I didn’t suggest that it entails seeing Christ beating up on Greg’s grandmother while Greg watched on cheering." But is certainly a long way from the words of the Jesus Peter knew when he told us, quote:
"since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously."
The concept of objective truth is a good one, the concept of an objective Jesus is a good one. The Jesus of Dr. Boyd and his imagination is a bad one - an unscriptural anti-Jesus who doesn't speak like the Jesus of Peter, the one who came in the flesh.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/24/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
The simple fact Chris is which is easy to check out, historically what the major factions of the historic Christian church believes as far as God and where salvation is and you will find that there is a major difference between the Mormon church and the Christian church.
Sorry to use the word "parse" twice in one thread, but I'm having difficulty performing that operation on your sentence. I don't disagree that there are significant differences in Christology and soteriology between Mormons and Evangelicals. To say, however, that there is a "major difference between the Mormon church and the Christian church" is to beg the question as to what "the Christian church" is, which is what I thought was the point of our little subthread.
quote:
If we going to take your standard anybody can be anything.
It wasn't my standard; it was the standard of the guy who wrote The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Perhaps you'd prefer the standard of the guy who wrote the OED: "One who believes or professes the religion of Christ . . . One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety." If you have another definition that you'd like to discuss, I'd be glad to do so.
quote:
It is quite to clear to anyone what the historic Christian church has believed from the beginning,
If it was quite clear, why were the Councils of Nicea called in the first place? And, speaking of councils, I noticed that you didn't address my question about the Council of Trent: Were the true Christians the anathematizers, the anathematizees, both, or neither?
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/24/2004 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
The simple fact Chris is which is easy to check out, historically what the major factions of the historic Christian church believes as far as God and where salvation is and you will find that there is a major difference between the Mormon church and the Christian church.
Sorry to use the word "parse" twice in one thread, but I'm having difficulty performing that operation on your sentence. I don't disagree that there are significant differences in Christology and soteriology between Mormons and Evangelicals. To say, however, that there is a "major difference between the Mormon church and the Christian church" is to beg the question as to what "the Christian church" is, which is what I thought was the point of our little subthread.
quote:
If we going to take your standard anybody can be anything.
It wasn't my standard; it was the standard of the guy who wrote The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Perhaps you'd prefer the standard of the guy who wrote the OED: "One who believes or professes the religion of Christ . . . One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety." If you have another definition that you'd like to discuss, I'd be glad to do so.
quote:
It is quite to clear to anyone what the historic Christian church has believed from the beginning,
If it was quite clear, why were the Councils of Nicea called in the first place? And, speaking of councils, I noticed that you didn't address my question about the Council of Trent: Were the true Christians the anathematizers, the anathematizees, both, or neither?
Chris,
I think that you answer your own question. When you state, "I don't disagree that there are significant differences in Christology and soteriology between Mormons and Evangelicals." and then give definifition which are all Christ-centric, "One who believes or professes the religion of Christ . . . One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety." You acknowledge the differences in Christology and you give Christ-centric definitions which necessarily include these differences you acknowledge. I acknowlege that the Mormon church may have even greater piety that many evangelical churches, where even now we race to put homosexuels in the pulpits. When we speak of following the precepts, example of Christ written by men who physically knew and witnessed Him contrasted to following the precepts of a Christ witnessed to by another man, Joseph Smith - these are different. Our assumptions lead us to different Christs and only one of them is the true Christ.
There must, therefore be a major difference between a church that abides only in the Christ of the canon and a church that embraces an additional testament of Jesus Christ. The foundation is different. Ultimately the question returns to "Who speaks for God?" Jesus gave us the result of listening to the wrong messenger, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." If Joseph Smith spoke for God, then I will be damned for not believing in his Christ. If he didn't speak for God, then those who belive in his teachings and the Christ he offers will be damned. Until then I will cling to the canon and you are welcome to cling to the canon + Mormon. Dr. Boyd is welcome to cling to his spiritual "Jesus" and his fictional anti-events.
I continue to appreciate your honesty and frank discussion. I just think you are wrong because I think your assumptions are wrong.
Your friend,
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/24/2004 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Chris,
I think that you answer your own question.
I've lost track of what question you're referring to. (It's apparently not the one about the Council of Trent.)
quote:
When you state, "I don't disagree that there are significant differences in Christology and soteriology between Mormons and Evangelicals." and then give definifition which are all Christ-centric, "One who believes or professes the religion of Christ . . . One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety."
I also don't disagree that there are significant differences in Christology between Evangelicals and Copts, and that there are significant differences in soteriology between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics.
quote:
Our assumptions lead us to different Christs and only one of them is the true Christ.
I don't find the terminology of "different Christs" terribly helpful. Pushed to its logical conclusion, it would require one to say that the Christ Pilate had crucified was a different Christ than the Christ whose crucifixion was mourned by His disciples (since, after all, Pilate had different beliefs about Christ than Christ's disciples had). You can't tell the players without a program, indeed!
quote:
There must, therefore be a major difference between a church that abides only in the Christ of the canon and a church that embraces an additional testament of Jesus Christ.
Does the Roman Catholic church abide only in the Christ of the canon?
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/24/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Chris states: I also don't disagree that there are significant differences in Christology between Evangelicals and Copts, and that there are significant differences in soteriology between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. quote:
Our assumptions lead us to different Christs and only one of them is the true Christ.
I don't find the terminology of "different Christs" terribly helpful. Pushed to its logical conclusion, it would require one to say that the Christ Pilate had crucified was a different Christ than the Christ whose crucifixion was mourned by His disciples (since, after all, Pilate had different beliefs about Christ than Christ's disciples had). You can't tell the players without a program, indeed!quote:
There must, therefore be a major difference between a church that abides only in the Christ of the canon and a church that embraces an additional testament of Jesus Christ.
Does the Roman Catholic church abide only in the Christ of the canon?
Chris,
Your following comment is very interesting, "Pushed to its logical conclusion, it would require one to say that the Christ Pilate had crucified was a different Christ than the Christ whose crucifixion was mourned by His disciples (since, after all, Pilate had different beliefs about Christ than Christ's disciples had)." I think that it raises a good point. The objective Christ that is described for us by the men that wrote the canon. If we fail to believe in ONLY this Christ, if we hold other beliefs and reject the claims of the true Christ and His chosen witnesses, then we perish eternally. The disciples and Pilot did have different Christs in the sense that Pilot refused to believe and killed him and the disciples believed and received eternal life. Ultimately all men, whatever their religious background, face the same decision.
If the Pope gives us a Christ who will give people salvation on the basis of fully-paid indulgence, then he has given us a different Christ. If this is the one he believes in, he will be damned. This same Pope may claim to speak for God and damn me in God's name for refusing to believe in his Christ. This is what happened in the reformation. If Joseph Smith gives us a different Christ, a supplimentary testament of Christ, then I believe that all who trust this other Christ for salvation will be damned as well. Regarding the copts, I have no experience or knowledge to respond.
I am not trying to be offensive, however, one of us is wrong. Our Christs are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you are right on the authority of Joseph Smith, and I will be damned. Ultimately we will leave it up to God and our righteous judge will decide on a coming day when He alone will be glorified. This will test the assumptions and expose once for all, "Who spoke for God."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/24/2004 8:13 PM (GMT -6) | | | Spenlake: I apologize for my comments that started with "yawn." Uncalled for. Chris: I hope I wasn't too harsh. Sorry. | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|