 |
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/23/2004 4:53 AM (GMT -6) |   |
February 6, 2004
Pastor Greg Boyd,
I have read your pamphlet “Seeing Jesus” concerning your teachings on imaginative prayer. Your introduction against trying harder as a solution was excellent. I agree with your arguments that only having an intellectual understanding of the truth will not result in eternal life. I find you consider the gospel as the introduction and beginning; your teachings after that introduction seem fatal and counter to your purposes. My argument is that, while you begin with the gospel, your teachings in “Seeing Jesus” lead me too far, not abiding in the teachings of Christ, to a subjective Jesus of my own making and imagination. While I appreciate that you give me freedom to follow the Jesus of my imagination and not the Jesus of the imagination of Greg Boyd, I still believe that this approach leads me to a false and deluding Jesus of my own making, a false peace, and ultimately to hell and damnation.
I posted an article concerning “physical interaction with spirits” on your website and I have enclosed a more thorough copy with this letter. The argument I raise defines an identifiable limit on “experiencing God” with objective boundaries concerning the examples of God/Man experiences you cite in your pamphlet. This article explains why I do not believe that it is biblical to objectively experience God now in the same way as the patriarchs. I think that this is important because of the implications of your arguments that failing to “experience God” in the “concrete, vivid, and powerful” intensity of historical biblical figures is settling for less than what God has made available, failing to bring about the transformation we need. Consistent with this approach, I have also attached a word study on “form” to bring into context the passage in Job that you cited to support your paper on page 59.
Your main arguments in “Seeing Jesus” are established in Chapter IV, The Nature and Controversy of Spiritual Sight. You conclude this chapter with, “Having shown the biblical and traditional foundation for imaginative meditation, and having dispelled the objections some contemporary Christians have raised concerning this practice, we may now turn to consider the practical question of how to pray using imaginative meditation.” Without addressing the omissions of many historical battles against “mysticism” that resulted in the church condemning and even burning proponents of this type of view, is this an overstatement and is your claim adequately supported?
Your logic appears to be:
- People in the past experienced God physically with a certain level of concrete, vivid and powerful intensity.
- God ordinarily doesn’t choose to communicate with people physically but spiritually.
- To experience transformation, we need to experience God spiritually with the same or greater intensity as those biblical examples who experienced God physically.
- Therefore, you provide a manual with a generic outline of how to pursue these mystical experiences with “god,” have them grow in intensity, and be transformed.
In your introduction of “Seeing and Hearing the Lord in Scripture,” you give several long lists of examples of how God interacted with people in the past. You are claiming on page 58,
“Through this brief summary we see that the relationship between God and people of faith throughout biblical history was not merely cognitive, theoretical and abstract. It was, rather, something real, concrete, experiential, and transforming. It was seen, heard, and felt.”
You imply in this conclusion that current humanity may still experience God in the same physical way that happened in the examples that you cite. I believe that this is both false and misleading because, while our faith may be as intense, experience may be far less tangible. I believe scriptures indicate that we will not have another Abraham or Moses – there will be no more patriarchs. Neither will we have another Jesus or “Anointed One,” just the return of the Uniquely Anointed One. The introductions to Hebrews and 1 John indicate that those alive during the incarnation experienced God in a unique and non-reproducible way compared with those alive since His ascension. Jesus himself says this in John 24:29, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” He goes on to pray for those who have not experienced Him tangibly but believe on Him through their words in John 17:20, “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Those living after this unique time believe based upon the objective words of Jesus’ witnesses, not because of a spiritual experience or a visitation of spirits. While Cornelius saw an angel, God sent a man to deliver the message of the gospel so that he could believe in the message and not the experience. This does not deny that we have experiences, just that our experiences are now subjective and unclear, they are not the basis of our beliefs. We no longer now experience God in the same, “real, concrete, experiential” way that the people living with Jesus did. Contrary to what we experience now subjectively, these men boldly claimed to have seen, heard, and felt God himself. This is what John was claiming in 1 John 1 – a unique period in time when God came and was experienced in a tangible way by the world and especially specific chosen witnesses.
You seem to minimize this claim of unique and limited objective interaction with God and morph the tangible into something mystical on page 58,
“It is sometimes assumed by contemporary readers that when believers in the Bible heard a message from the Lord or saw a vision it was an objective experience….It is true that the Lord frequently interacted with his people in a physically perceivable way. When Jacob wrestled with the Lord, for example, it was probably something anyone could have seen (Gen. 32:24-30). But it is crucial for us to understand that this was not the ordinary way God related to his people in Scripture.
In most instances, nothing indicates that the hearing and seeing that characterized the faith of biblical believers was physical. God’s ordinary mode of communication, both in biblical times and today, is to speak and appear to those who have the spiritual capacity to hear and see spiritual realities. (cf. Ezek 12:2; Matt 11:15, 13:9-15; Acts 7:51). It is usually a spiritual hearing and seeing given only to the one intended by God to receive it.”
When I look up the scriptures I find no mysticism or techniques and methods for improving my spiritual hearing. I find Ezekiel physically communicating the message of God as objectively as possible. In Matthew, I find Jesus speaking audible words commanding those around to listen to what He was physically saying. In Acts, Stephan condemns the Pharisees for refusing to listen to the written words of Moses and the prophets. Based upon the passages you cite, God’s “ordinary mode” of communication was to speak His words objectively - physically, audibly or in writings - through His prophets and witnesses. In each instance He communicated tangibly and NOT with a spiritual experience reached through mystical disciplines.
I fail to understand how you can take physical and tangible words communicated to men’s ears and spiritualize them to support your claim to a mystical experience more real than the physical as seen on page 56.
“Transformation is the result of concrete experiences rather than intellectual convictions. Our rooting in the flesh is based on experience and so it is experience rather than mere intellectual belief that can free us from the flesh. Unless our experience of truth is as concrete, vivid and powerful as our experience of deception, the way we experience ourselves and God will continue to be fleshly, regardless of how true our intellectual beliefs are.”
In effect, you switch the concrete objective and the spiritual. You offer hope through promising transformation by a spiritual experience created in my imagination that is supposedly more real than the objective experience we have with our bodies. You are preaching a transforming faith in mystical feeling instead of a transforming faith based on the objective message. This is the antithesis of John’s arguments in 1 John 1:1 or Hebrews 1:1. Instead of mysticism, Christianity is a message God objectively communicated to some men who now objectively communicate it to all men – some of whom God gives the gift of transforming faith to believe it. I maintain that you are doing a disservice to Christians in your approach and leading them to a different subjective god of their own making. I believe that this sets a standard or expectations that are not supported by the witnesses Jesus left us.
In BOTH the Old Testament and the New Testament, God revealed himself and His message to men objectively in front of witnesses – this objective promise made in the presence of witnesses then formed the basis for the covenants. This revelation was written down with the command that this was the only God people were to know. In neither case was it a God of their internal imaginations or internal perceptions. This was always forbidden. The only God that Israel was to know was the God that was revealed in the written books of Moses written before he died. Deut. 13:1 is clear regarding this limitation of any God not already objectively revealed by Moses’ writings – regardless or in spite of tangible spiritual experiences,
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
This would mean God allows supernatural spiritual experiences to test our love for the revealed God of the objective message He communicated once for all. Following gods created in their own imagination led Israel to destruction as seen in Jeremiah 23:16,
16 Thus says the LORD of hosts,
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are leading you into futility;
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the LORD.
17 “They keep saying to those who despise Me,
‘The LORD has said, “You will have peace”’;
And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,
They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’
18 “But who has stood in the council of the LORD,
That he should see and hear His word?
Who has given heed to His word and listened?
The apostasy from the revealed God in Moses’ writings towards internal spiritism and personal imaginations is shown in Isaiah 8:16;
Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait for the LORD who is hiding His face from the house of Jacob; I will even look eagerly for Him. Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.
When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. They will pass through the land hard-pressed and famished, and it will turn out that when they are hungry, they will be enraged and curse their king and their God as they face upward. Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness.
In the passage in Isaiah we see the opposite of what you are encouraging. We see true disciples who have not experienced seeing the face of God because He was hiding it from the house of Jacob. Instead of seeking His face in spiritual experiences created within their imaginations, they cling to the objective testimony and law and wait for the Lord to reveal Himself – which happened with the incarnation of Jesus and will happen again at His return.
The apostasy from the objective message and the God revealed in Moses’ writings foreshadowed the same apostasy in the New Testament. In Deut 18, concurrent with the warnings against spiritism and techniques for spiritual imaginations, Moses points to an objective and unique coming prophet that Israel was to listen to, Jesus, as claimed by Peter in Acts 3:21 and Stephan in Acts 7:37. However, in the same way Israel turned to spiritual imaginations instead of following the God Moses documented, we see the New Testament Christians straying to new Jesus’ of their own imaginations. John’s gospel and epistles were written to address the movement from the objective physical Jesus witnessed by the apostles to an imaginative substitute Jesus and his “anointed messengers,” the false christs. To combat the worldview proposing an imaginative Jesus, John claimed a unique and limited time in which the Word of God was revealed and tangibly experienced by witnesses. These witnesses left us with the written authoritative record of Jesus – God in the flesh. Any spirit that didn’t confess this objective Christ, the one that came in the flesh and was now in heaven, was the spirit of the antichrist (meaning an imaginative substitute anointed one). By this measure, even the spirit speaking truth in Acts 16:17 proclaiming Paul was a servant of the Most High God with the message of salvation was a spirit of antichrist, a substitute anointing that didn’t confess Jesus and His incarnation.
While the spirit of Christ lives in every believer, the incarnate unique Christ is now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven waiting to return. We are not to seek or create this incarnate Christ inside of us mystically through our imagination because we are told that the true Jesus now resides in heaven and not in our imagination. Any incarnate Jesus that I find inside myself is not the one that came in the flesh but an imposter of my own imagination – a substitute anointed one or antichrist. We see in Rev. 19:10, the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of this Jesus, not one of our own imaginations.
Idolatry of the Old Testament began with men interacting directly with spirits (Gen 6:3), it evolved into men worshipping the form of these spirits in graven images of idols (Deut 4:16 and Is 44), it culminated into an internal idolatry in which the high priesthood and temple system was corrupted into an idolatry itself (Malachi 1:7,12; 2:8; and the gospels). As we are now the temple of the Holy Spirit, we may also parallel the culmination of Jewish idolatry that corrupted the temple and priesthood and ended up killing the true Christ. While the idols of the Old Testament were physical images of spirits created by the hands of men, how much more is an image created by my own imagination an idol expressing my own desires? We know that greed is idolatry in the New Testament. What could be more satisfying to my appetites and greed than a god of my own makings and imagination? In contrast, the incarnation is not the product of my imagination or any human imagination or any mysticism, it was physically seen, heard, and felt by witnesses like John, who commanded against a god of our imagination.
Finally in your pamphlet you seem to indicate that only some people are given the spiritual capacity to hear and see spiritual realities. Is this spiritual capacity to see and hear actually a gift given by God to some or is it a skill acquired by some in order to hear God? Is this an accurate understanding of what you mean to say on page 58?
In most instances, nothing indicates that the hearing and seeing that characterized the faith of biblical believers was physical. God’s ordinary mode of communication, both in biblical times and today, is to speak and appear to those who have the spiritual capacity to hear and see spiritual realities. (cf. Ezek 12:2; Matt 11:15, 13:9-15; Acts 7:51). It is usually a spiritual hearing and seeing given only to the one intended by God to receive it.”
If this is accurate, what is your solution? The answer you propose later in your pamphlet is our own imaginations, describing techniques and methods by which people on their own initiative can attain this spiritual capacity through their own imaginative spiritual disciplines. If the “transforming power” is given by God, why not simply conceptualize the “spiritual capacity given by God to some to believe (see and hear) the transforming power of the message offered to all men” in terms of the doctrines of election and God’s choosing instead of some kind of mystical skill to be learned by some who receive this gift?
In conclusion, I would ask you to reconsider your position on “imaginative prayer” and believe and concentrate on the gospel that you have so eloquently expressed in many of your writings.
Kind Regards
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/31/2004 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | John says
I appreciate the sheer volume of your effort here if nothing else. However, I believe you are just trying too hard and extrapolating far beyond what Dr Boyd intended or implied. I had hoped that someone would defend Dr Boyd in his absence from the Board.
I do not have time to address your every extrapolation but here is one example where the weight of your (closing) argument falls like feathers...
Spenlake said:
"While the spirit of Christ lives in every believer, the incarnate
unique Christ is now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven waiting to return. We are not to seek or create this incarnate Christ inside of us mystically through our imagination because we are told that the true Jesus now resides in heaven and not in our imagination. Any incarnate Jesus that I find inside myself is not the one that came in the flesh but an imposter of my own imagination – a substitute anointed one or antichrist. We see in Rev. 19:10, the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of this Jesus, not one of our own imaginations."
Your proposal vastly underestimates the omnipresence of Deity. Talk about Open Theists limiting God. Talk about thumbing your nose at tradition. "In HIM[Christ], ALL things [even the molecules in my brain which generate imagination] are held together." ALL means ALL. The incarnate Christ being "there" does not preclude the incarnate Christ being "here." Scripture never describes two Christs. There is no "Spirit of Christ" separate from the "Incarnate Christ." You are confusing with the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not preclude the omnipresent Christ.
Regardless, Dr Boyd neither states nor implies that the "Jesus" of one's "imagination" should be anything but absolutely congruent with the "Jesus" of Scripture." They too are the same Jesus. You are the only one dicing the Messiah into parts. Your arguments only apply to a "Jesus" who shows up in someone's imagination or anywhere else who is not really Jesus. And that of course is not the "Jesus" Dr Boyd is talking about.
Wish I had time to tit for tat with this one. I suspect when Dr Boyd's book is released and read by a few on the Board there will be ample response to your concerns.
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/1/2004 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake
As I said
REGARDLESS, Dr Boyd neither states nor implies that the "Jesus" of one's "imagination" should be anything but absolutely congruent with the "Jesus" of Scripture." They too are the same Jesus. You are the only one dicing the Messiah into parts. Your arguments only apply to a "Jesus" who shows up in someone's imagination or anywhere else who is not really Jesus. And that of course is not the "Jesus" Dr Boyd is talking about.
This BEING THE CASE...You and Boyd agree philosophically. His argument however brings the philosophical into the pragmatic realm where we all live and breath and where abstract thoughts must ultimately come to bear if there is to be any correlation with reality and if Jesus is to impact our life and experience.
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/1/2004 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
Morton Kelsey, that Dr. Boyd endorses and and whose writings he supports in his pamphlet 'Seeing Jesus,' is a a mystic using occultist methods for spiritual experiences. In his book "Encountering God" Moton Kelsey often looks to Carl Jung and his understanding of the collective consciousness and even went to Europe to meet with him. Kelsey uses Jung and his beliefs to support his mystical Jesus and the experineces that he seeks. Jung and his occultist beliefs are the direct result of Jung's experiences with his "spirit guide" Philemon. It should be of grave concern to all Christians that this is the direction Dr. Boyd is leading us in his “imaginative Jesus” of numinous experience.quote:
Quote from Kelsey: The numinous experience not only gives meaning and value to man’s life – both in the outer world as well as in his entire psychic life – it also gives direction, along with the confidence to do something about it, in fact a sense of destiny. This experience of contact with meaning and creativity also appears to be the only force that is able to stand against the destructive elements which man faces as he enters into conflict with the spiritual world. Evil and destructiveness are realities in that world which man also finds when he comes into touch with this realm, and these realities have been described in varied ways and they are expressed in the infinitely varied ways that they are expressed outwardly. Page 149, Encountering God.
Kelsey extols the religious contributions of Jung, and the Persian Zoroastrians. He traces the OV concept of evil to these Persian mystics and tells us that Jesus followed in their revelations.quote:
A great contribution was made to religious understanding by Zoroastrianism in Persia; this was the discrimination between the forces or powers of good and those of evil. Ahriman – the force of evil, darkness and destruction – was seen in ceaseless conflict with Ahura Mazda, the god of light. Jesus of Nazareth followed this dualistic understanding and experience calling the dark force “the evil one.”
Your lighthearted overlooking of what is being said and why is another reflection on why we should be concerned. The gospel is enough. The gospel + mysticism has lessened the gospel, and ultimately isn't the gospel.
John claiming quote:
Dr Boyd neither states nor implies that the "Jesus" of one's "imagination" should be anything but absolutely congruent with the "Jesus" of Scripture."
is not enough. The oneness Pentacostals also claim to preach and believe in the Jesus of the Scriptures. Dr. Boyd has done an excellent job of proving their claim to be a false one. I maintain that until we "see Him as He is" our imaginationary Jesus is not the Scriptural Jesus, but one that our imaginations have built. Jung and Kelsey have built experiences in their imaginations and in conjunction with the cosmic consciousness. Dr. Boyd endorses their concepts, their ideas, and their methods and feeds them to our imagination to build a Jesus we can experience. This goes beyond the Jesus congruent with the Sciptures.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/1/2004 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen lake
I guess I just disagee with your definition of mysticism. Mysticism by definition has no correlate in reality--exactly opposite of what Dr Boyd proposes. A coorelate with the objective Christ.
"Take on the mind of Christ" Bring Christ into your mind. Which "Christ" is the Apostle referencing here? The incarnate Christ??? The Spirit of Christ??? they are one and the same. "Taking on the mind..." into one's own mind is a MENTAL PROCESS. Christ's "mind" enters the molecular interactions occuring in one's brain.
So, we have no problem so long as the Jesus of the mind IS the Jesus of Scripture. That is the point--a process in which one via the Spirit and the Word removes the counterfiet's of our imagination and incorporates the Jesus of Scripture into not only one's mind and imagination but into one's life. The brain ultimately directs the hands which minister and the mouth which speaks. We best involve "Jesus" in the process in an objective sense before procede robotically.
Dr Boyd's reference to those you listed does not have to mean a "hook-line-and sinker" all-inclusive endorsement. It certainly can but it does not have to.
That which you paint over with broad strokes and discount completely, others paint with finer strokes and glean kernels of truth where it may be found. AKA Natural revelation. For instance one can reference the virtue of loyalty even among terrorists without endorsing their entire program and world view.
More could be said but I think we are at impass. Maybe others will read thebook and chime in.
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/1/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen Lake
Again, Jesus for me (and Boyd) is one and the same. The Jesus of Scripture and the Jesus at the Right Hand of the Father and the Jesus Dr Boyd challenges us to incorporate into our minds are equivalent. They are all objective reality. They are one.
Regarding my reference to your "dicing," the context was Jesus. and your reference to the Jesuses diced into "The incarate Christ" confined to heaven in your earlier post vs a different "Spirit of Christ" not confined. my reference is to a the pragmatic methodology Dr Boyd proposes. Let's not mix our metaphors.
Recall what Paul said:
Acts 16:7...and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them.
Here is a case in point of the objective "Jesus" incarnate, imagined, or brought into the psychy of a human mind. I believe this fits onto Dr Boyd's proposed paradigm and interpretation of Scripture.
Here is my summary of Boyd's proposal regardless of the footnotes, Biblical, secular or otherwise cited along the way:
Jesus IS an objective reality revealed in Scripture. Again, It is this OBJECTIVe omnipresent Jesus revealed in Scripture that we are to bring into our mind.
I think we are close here. Mysticism is the subjectivity you reference. Boyd hinges his proposal on the OBJECTIVE Christ (not an imaginative Christ) emerging into our psychy.
I for one am glad that Dr Boyd has gleaned some rudimentary element of truth from Jung and the like. Truth is Truth wherever it lies. Even the most sorid of systems must hinge to reality at some point.
I really think we have taken theological hairsplitting to a new level with this.
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/1/2004 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John says:Recall what Paul said:
Acts 16:7...and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them.
Here is a case in point of the objective "Jesus" incarnate, imagined, or brought into the psychy of a human mind. I believe this fits onto Dr Boyd's proposed paradigm and interpretation of Scripture.
In this Scripture it is the Spirit of Jesus, not the incarnate Jesus in heaven, giving guidance. How this guidance was given is not revealed. It could have been simply that Paul was physically prevented from going and believed it to be the will of God. The event happened and was attributed to the Spirit of Jesus. In Acts 18:21 Paul states, "I will agree return to you again if God wills." Paul would know if God wills him to return if he is able to actually return. In Acts 21:4 we see disciples telling Paul "by the spirit" not to go to Jerusalem. After this Paul heard a man claiming to speak for the Holy Spirit that he would be bound and delivered to the Gentiles. Paul's reaction is to say, "The will of the Lord be done." God's will was done and manifested when Paul was bound and sent to the gentiles.
It is going too far to use this passage to "prove" that Jesus came into his mind in some psychic experience. I am not saying, however, that experiences don't happen or are somehow "sin" in themselves. Peter went into a trance. Angels and visions are documented in Scripture. Spiritual experiences in themselves are not mysticism. Mysticism is where we adopt some techniques or disciplines in order to pursue these mystcial experiences. This is what is forbidden in Deut 18 - pursuing direct contact with spirits (usually for guidance). These techniques are not neutral, nor are they common knowledge, nor are they taught in Scripture as how we are commanded to experience God. It seems to me that if Jesus is central and the standard by which Dr. Boyd interprets the Scriptures this is important. In some way this concept has a circular reasoning component. This seems strengthened by your inference that the Jesus that comes into my head by experience is the objective one. This is the point of spiritual experiences, they are subjective. If the appetites in my imagination influence the Jesus I experience there, this could have significant impact on my understanding of Scriptures and my corresponding worldview. I believe that it would be more important than the hair-splitting analogy you use. Even if I have only pure appetites and imaginations that are utterly sanctified and therefore only experience a pure Jesus, teaching others who may have corrupted appetites to experience an internal Jesus envisioned in synergy with these appetites seems dangerous and forbidden.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/1/2004 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Jesus clearly identified himself with the Holy Spirit:
John 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Either Jesus was not too worried about whether to say it would be Him in body or in spirit that would be coming to his disciples after he ascended. He says, "The Father will send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth, and then in the same breath says, "I will come to you."
The following are just a few of the New Testament verses that lead me to believe in an actual experiential knowledge of/relationship with the Holy Spirit being normative for the Christian life. (If this equals "mysticism" then so be it) :
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1 Cor. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
2 Corinthians 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Eph. 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Eph. 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Eph. 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Phil. 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
2 Cor. 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 6:23 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/1/2004 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | |
John,
Thank you for the time and effort on the texts. I agree wholeheartedly with you that Jesus identified Himself with the Holy Spirit. I would also go further and say that if we do not have the Holy Spirit in us, then we are not Christians and will be damned. Jesus doesn’t however just promise us a spirit we encounter “freestyle.” His Spirit has characteristics that qualify that it truly is the Holy Spirit. The fact that we experience a spirit who is “light” and makes us feel good mean nothing as to whether it is the Holy Spirit or not. We are even told that Satan appears as an angel of light. I think that that would look like light to me. The Holy Spirit is defined by objective content, not an experience.
In your first passage Jesus qualifies Him as the Spirit of Truth. He also says, “My words are truth.” Truth is not a feeling, but the objective words of God communicated to us by a man, God Himself. One role of the Holy Spirit was to bring back to remembrance to the Apostles the spoken words of Jesus the man. The newness of the Spirit in Romans 7 was not freestyle spiritual experiences but the message of the gospel, the letter in Romans 8 was the written letter of the Law as opposed to the message of the gospel. It is because we believe the objective message that we have the witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16. Any witness based upon experience or our imaginations could leave us as the self-assured miracle working, demon dominating men of Matthew 7:23 who are expelled from the kingdom of heaven and damned. These men had evidently constructed a Jesus in their imaginations and called him Lord. They were so confident in their imaginations and spiritual experiences that they could look at Jesus on His throne and tell of all the miracles they had done in His name. The real Jesus never knew them and was not the imposter of the own making - just their judge.quote:
Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
Notice, just after condemning the miracle experiencing false ones, Jesus speaks of His words, spoken words as being the true foundation. 1 Cor 2 is speaking of the deep and hidden things of the Spirit as being the mystery of the gospel and salvation through the death of Christ. This mystery has been made known to us now and the one body is objectively defined by His words, not by freestyle spiritual experiences. The other verses you cite in Ephesians point to the Spirit working in us through the objective words and teachings of Jesus and the men He objectively appointed. The inner man is strengthened and our MINDS renewed by studying and believing His Word in synergy with His Spirit. The foundation of the apostles and prophets served to remember, speak and write His word.
The Philippians 2:5 passage has nothing to do about freestyle mystical experiences but is part of a beautiful summary of the objective gospel and a call to believe it and practice it. This passage is very specific that Jesus was a man. There is nothing here asking me to welcoming into my mind a subjective imagination.quote:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Ephesians 5:18 gives content to being filled with the Spirit and links it to the Psalms.
Col 3:16 gives wonderful objective content to how Christ dwells in us richly, through the word of Christ, teaching and admonishing one another according to that word and the Psalms. Where are the techniques and methods to pursue freestyle spiritual experiences that Dr. Boyd teaches us are important?
Regarding Acts 8, if you are really claiming to be Agabus, who was never once recorded as being wrong, tell me the future and let it happen. I believe that God can speak to men and I believe that the Holy Spirit is never wrong. I am not a cessationist. If we are wrong, it is obviously because it was us and not the Holy Spirit speaking. Concerning both John the Baptist and the men in Acts 2:4, this speaks wonderfully as to who chooses or acts to place the Holy Spirit in/on people – man or God. What technique did John the Baptist follow to pursue the Holy Spirit? And how did he experience his imaginary Jesus.
2 Cor 3:15 speaks of the Jews refusing to believe the objective message of the gospel and His resurrection, not refusing a subjective spiritual experience. They refused a man that demonstrated objectively with supernatural objective proofs that He was God. They had witnesses to what happened and they still refused Him. You cannot equate their experience to a subjective freestyle experience that I imagine in my head. I experience BECAUSE I believe in the objective message that the Holy Spirit makes alive to me, not the other way around.
The Spirit in 1 John is also qualified by content, objective truth..
This brings us to the point that you left out of your freestyle spiritual experience. We are commanded not to believe every spirit that we experience or that claims to be the Holy Spirit. John tells us that there are many spirits. quote:
1 John 4:1 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world”
He then tells us what to consider, quote:
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”
Confessing Jesus is come in the flesh is more than “magic words.” This phrase has to do with Christ’s incarnation, his objective words and work done as a man, and his bodily resurrection, and ascension. The “anti” in antichrist is not necessarily “against” but also has the meaning “substitute.” This is exactly what Dr. Boyd in his new book along with Kelsey, and Carl Jung teach us to entertain and experience – a substitute spiritual Christ imagined in synergy with our internal appetites and desires.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/1/2004 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen lake
We are getting close here.
Was Paul's experience or Peter's experience obective or subjective?
You say:
This is the point of spiritual experiences, they are subjective. If the appetites in my imagination influence the Jesus I experience there, this could have significant impact on my understanding of Scriptures and my corresponding worldview.
You simply describe life here--from top to bottom. Dr Boyd I believe simply proposes a way to remove subjectivity as much as is possible and in order to push the spiritual process toward the "objective" Jesus of Scripture and impact my worldview.
Nothing cicular here:
Scripture->"objective Jesus"->enters my mind->impacts worldview
After all the Word as "objective" as it is is of no use if not brought into a life. The process Dr Boyd describes is simply an extension of what man experiences in salvation--when God fills and interacts with man. There is no difference between Jesus entering your mind or the Spirit entering your mind or the Word entering your mind. The noodles between your ears is the happenin' place.
Thanks for the scripture regergetation which essentially documents the concept of omnipresence of "GOD." God is simply God and He is where He is which is everywhere. Not confined to Heaven in any of His personhood as you previously stated.
Would you feel better if He referenced the Holy Spirit in stead of Jesus. Then again it is difficult to envision a spirit. Too abstract. What does the Spirit look like when He comforts you when you are grieving? I bet He looks like Jesus with His arms around you consoling your tears, patting your back, holding you up. Of course that image is born out of the Word. That's all Dr. Boyd is saying. Nothing pagan here. Man lives and breathes and thinks in a world of images. Comfort, to continue the example, must be tangible in order to be real. There is no comfort in abstract "presence." This is perhaps one reason why God seems so foreign to so many during times of distress. They've been taught so much hypertranscendent theology that their mind is unable to even comprehend the presence of God in any form.
My impression is that your thoughts describe a limited Christ without omnipresence, a Trinity that borders on modalism, and a Christ so (hyper) transcendent that genuine relationship with man is impossible.
Anyway, the theological hair is split asunder once again. Its a new record.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How many Jesuses can dance in the head of a man?
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 4/4/2004 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Without comment on the details above, there are different levels of mysticism. There are groups of belief classically called ‘mystic’ in various religions (even in Islam) and between them, that is, mixes of beliefs, but there are also simple, small ideas that carry mystic connotations. That is, they claim some form of special knowledge or connection to God but do not explain why they have this connection or knowledge.
The last phrase is a key to understanding these forms of mysticism. I imaging my Pentecostal friend Spenlake has found these within his group of contacts at church as have I from an very conservative Independent Baptist church (Tim LaHaye’s).
[An odd thing I have spotted is that he and I seem to have come to very similar places in our beliefs from to very different evangelical viewpoints.]
You can spot these forms of mysticism because they claim to have a secret or mystic connection to either God or special knowledge of spiritual things that is not explained.
Next. . .
From a brief read of the posts above I think Spenlake is trying to nail down particulars similar to some concerns I have had about Doc’s thinking. (Mine were from his book Satan and the Problem of Evil.
In that case Doc appealed to Barth’s idea about hell. In my brief exposure to Barth, I didn’t want any more exposure to Barth. However, this leaves me without knowledge about what Barth really thought, so, OK weigh up the idea itself not the source of the idea. When I did that, I still didn’t like the way the text flowed. I don’t have a problem with this idea of hell (I rather like it), I just don’t like the way it was arrived at.
Here Spenlake seems to have similar concerns over some details. I have not read the pamphlet he refers to but his comments are well thought and expressed. I’d like to hear Doc on this.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 4/4/2004 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake Asserts,
”I have read your pamphlet “Seeing Jesus” concerning your teachings on imaginative prayer. Your introduction against trying harder as a solution was excellent. I agree with your arguments that only having an intellectual understanding of the truth will not result in eternal life. I find you consider the gospel as the introduction and beginning; your teachings after that introduction seem fatal and counter to your purposes.
Tiggers’ Reply,
Hey Spen! I concur with your rating of “excellent” with regards to “trying harder as a solution” & “only having an intellectual understanding of the truth will not result in eternal life.”
Spenlake Asserts,
“My argument is that, while you begin with the gospel, your teachings in “Seeing Jesus” lead me too far, not abiding in the teachings of Christ, to a subjective Jesus of my own making and imagination. While I appreciate that you give me freedom to follow the Jesus of my imagination and not the Jesus of the imagination of Greg Boyd, I still believe that this approach leads me to a false and deluding Jesus of my own making, a false peace, and ultimately to hell and damnation.”
Tiggers’ Reply,
Now Spen, as you have read my thread on Seeing is Believing (i.e., due to the fact that you responded to it) you will quickly realize that I have only read the introduction; therefore, any critique I have on the book would be premature & uneducated. Spen, do you have the book and what pamphlet are you referring to? Hey Spen, what’s up with the “ultimately to hell and damnation” part? Sorry, I can’t discuss more, but it wouldn’t be right until I finish the book….hey, it might be cool if you joined in on the discussion. I truly believe that your ideas would be helpful to myself and this board in a more step by step (chapter by chapter) format. You see, I too am skeptical, but by no means would I suggest “hell and damnation” to those who grow spiritually from imaginative prayer. Anyways, God bless Sis/Bro!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 4/4/2004 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey C.Vers,
Dag, John Earp, JohnMD & Spenlake…Great discussion  ! I finally read through it all, and seem to concur with JohnMD when he asserts “Again, Jesus for me (and Boyd) is one and the same. The Jesus of Scripture and the Jesus at the Right Hand of the Father and the Jesus Dr Boyd challenges us to incorporate into our minds are equivalent. They are all objective reality. They are one.” Now, I may be jumping the gun by not reading the book and all yet, but I have read much from the Doc as well as had him for a prof. and the Jesus Doc always portrays in his other books (e.g., Cynic Sage or Son of God, Jesus Under Fire, Letters from a Skeptic, etc.) are ones portraying a Scriptural Jesus. Why would he begin to be inconsistent now, Spen?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers  "smoke'm if you got em!"
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/10/2004 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | In his book "Seeing is believing," Dr. Boyd has redefined the words "truth” and “real” to mean different things, they are no longer synonyms.
On page 11 he states, “Wondering whether Christianity is real is not the same as wondering whether Christianity is true.”
On page 13 he states, “Remember, it’s not what we believe intellectually that impacts us; it’s what we experience as real.”
Dr. Boyd is telling us that the objective factual evidence that we tangibly discern and process with our intellect is less real than subjective experiences we don’t confirm with our senses. Dr. Boyd goes on to define “spiritual truth” as internal subjective experiences. He states on page 15,
“We have forgotten the truth that while the imagination certainly can be merely ‘imaginative,’ it can also be the means by which we experience spiritual truths as real.”
This may sound innocent, if spiritual truths experienced actually conform to objective truth – Scripture and the historical record observed by men. This is exactly what is denied, however, and the process that Dr. Boyd provides us with constructs an “alternate reality” in his imagination that is disassociated with the objective historical record. He constructs a lie and he claims it “real.” He implicates his imagined “spiritual Jesus” into his lie and claims it to be true and Scriptural, because it works.
I am not exaggerating. 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.”
Dr. Boyd has imagined, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Jesus, a new historical record without witnesses that he now believes to be “real” and a spiritual experience of the truth. This is how the imaginative Jesus enabled Dr. Boyd to forgive his grandmother and find healing. It is the process of building a story that opposes objective reality, believing that it is inspired and therefore “real” and experiencing relief from the historical record that is now “unreal” so that forgiveness is possible. He states on page 123,
“It is crucial to note, however, that forgiveness usually comes at the end of the healing process (i.e. imagined story believed as true), not at the beginning.
Scriptures tell us of a different path to forgiveness which doesn’t consist of my creating inspired “subjective reality.” When I realize that I am utterly sinful and undeserving, with a monumental debt towards God I am incapable of paying, destined to damnation - and God comes and dies for me and forgives my mountainous debt and gives me eternal life instead, the antithesis of anything I deserved or merited – the gratitude that whelms up in my heart and mind at this realization enables me to forgive the puny debts that grandmothers owe to me. This is the gospel. This doesn’t require spirits to create freestyle historical records so I can forgive. It simply believes in the work that God, as a tangible man, did for me on the cross. This is where we find the true and real power to forgive, in objective history that was seen by witnesses and written down for us to read and understand.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/11/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen Lake you have obviously invested significant time and effort in responding to Dr Boyd's proposal and that is commendable. However, your arguments do not follw because your commendable concern for "objectivity" is purely ontological while Dr. Boyd supposes to bring that same ontological reality (of yours and mine) down to earth where man lives and breathes and hurts and ministers-in essence to take the "pie out of the sky by and by."
Spen Lake
In his book "Seeing is believing," Dr. Boyd has redefined the words "truth¡¨ and ¡§real¡¨ to mean different things, they are no longer synonyms.
On page 11 he states, ¡§Wondering whether Christianity is real is not the same as wondering whether Christianity is true.¡¨
John says
Again, your extrapolation of Dr. Boyd¡¦s position is inaccurate. Dr. Boyd has been the poster boy for evangelical apologetics. The statement you reference is not in regard to the fundamental truth of the Christian Faith. He is referencing the process that occurs between the ears as one assimilates information and integrates that which is presented as (and is) object truth (e.g., the Christian Faith) into one¡¦s thinking and assessment of reality.
The ¡§fallen¡¨ mind (i.e., the only ¡§mind¡¨ known in man¡¦s experience and available to analyze) is by nature disconnected. For example a mother experiences post partum depression such that even in the face of truth (motherhood) the mother ¡§wonders¡¨ if she is really a mother. In extreme examples the disconnect is to such a degree that the mother might kill or abandon the infant.
Again, both of these interactions (and millions of others) are ongoing simultaneously in the fallen mind. Dr. Boyd¡¦s point is to bring the sterile abstraction of objective/intellectual truth into the pragmatic realm of what man experiences as ¡§real.¡¨
You are confusing ¡§truth¡¨ with Dr. Boy¡¦s ¡§wondering what is true.¡¨ Dr. Boyd. Dr. Boyd is addressing the process of thought in the fallen mind and offering a process to align the mind with the objective truth you are referencing in another context. There is no redefinition of terms. You are reference is ontological. His reference is a method to bring what is true ontologically into man¡¦s experience¡Xnot to redefine ¡§true¡¨ and ¡§real¡¨ but to make what is true real in man¡¦s experience.
Spen Lake
On page 13 he states, ¡§Remember, it¡¦s not what we believe intellectually that impacts us; it¡¦s what we experience as real.¡¨
Dr. Boyd is telling us that the objective factual evidence that we tangibly discern and process with our intellect is less real than subjective experiences we don¡¦t confirm with our senses. Dr. Boyd goes on to define ¡§spiritual truth¡¨ as internal subjective experiences. He states on page 15,
¡§We have forgotten the truth that while the imagination certainly can be merely ¡¥imaginative,¡¦ it can also be the means by which we experience spiritual truths as real.¡¨
This may sound innocent, if spiritual truths experienced actually conform to objective truth ¡V Scripture and the historical record observed by men. This is exactly what is denied, however, and the process that Dr. Boyd provides us with constructs an ¡§alternate reality¡¨ in his imagination that is disassociated with the objective historical record. He constructs a lie and he claims it ¡§real.¡¨ He implicates his imagined ¡§spiritual Jesus¡¨ into his lie and claims it to be true and Scriptural, because it works.
John says
You have missed Dr. Boyd¡¦s point and have created an irrelevant straw man. Dr. Boyd is only describing what we all know to be true and what the Scripture overtly states. Sterile fact and intellect is not what impacts man, it is what man experiences as real that impacts man. For example, an overbearing father who never spends real time with his daughter might constantly instruct his daughter of the perils of promiscuity, However, since he has not provided his daughter the love and security she needs, the first guy that comes along gives her visions of love and security and she falls for him into the realm of immorality because what she had ¡§experienced¡¨ was real.
Now, neither I nor Dr. Boyd are rejecting objective truth as real, only that the fallen mind is inclined toward experience. The quote you reference, ¡§We have forgotten the truth that while the imagination certainly can be merely ¡¥imaginative,¡¦ it can also be the means by which we experience spiritual truths as real,¡¨ says nothing ¡§objective factual evidence that we tangibly discern and process with our intellect is less real than subjective experiences we don¡¦t confirm with our senses.¡¨
Your last paragraph is a rant against your straw man. As per my previous post, Dr. Boyd¡¦s intent is, in fact, the opposite of what you construct in your straw man. Dr. Boyd¡¦s intent is to bring abstract pie in the sky theology down to earth and intot he heart of man where man can be impacted and so that the mind of man can be redeemed and aligned with the reality of the ¡¨historical¡¨ record and the objective Jesus presented therein (see my previous post which rebuts Spen lakes recurrent and unfounded assertion of ¡§alternate reality.¡¨
Spen Lake
I am not exaggerating. 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.¡¨
Dr. Boyd has imagined, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Jesus, a new historical record without witnesses that he now believes to be ¡§real¡¨ and a spiritual experience of the truth. This is how the imaginative Jesus enabled Dr. Boyd to forgive his grandmother and find healing. It is the process of building a story that opposes objective reality, believing that it is inspired and therefore ¡§real¡¨ and experiencing relief from the historical record that is now ¡§unreal¡¨ so that forgiveness is possible. He states on page 123,
John says
Dr. Boyd is not creating a new ¡§historical¡¨ record¡K, he is simply imaging how Jesus might have responded in the situation he had experienced. Sounds like an honest to goodness WWJD to me. If it looks like a Jesus and quacks like a Jesus¡KIt¡¦s a Jesus. This Jesus sounds congruent with the ¡§historical¡¨ record and that is really the only thing that matters
Spen Lake
¡§It is crucial to note, however, that forgiveness usually comes at the end of the healing process (i.e. imagined story believed as true), not at the beginning.
John says
Forgiveness by any other name is still forgiveness. You are splitting hairs.
Spen Lake
Scriptures tell us of a different path to forgiveness which doesn¡¦t consist of my creating inspired ¡§subjective reality.¡¨ When I realize that I am utterly sinful and undeserving, with a monumental debt towards God I am incapable of paying, destined to damnation - and God comes and dies for me and forgives my mountainous debt and gives me eternal life instead, the antithesis of anything I deserved or merited ¡V the gratitude that whelms up in my heart and mind at this realization enables me to forgive the puny debts that grandmothers owe to me. This is the gospel. This doesn¡¦t require spirits to create freestyle historical records so I can forgive. It simply believes in the work that God, as a tangible man, did for me on the cross. This is where we find the true and real power to forgive, in objective history that was seen by witnesses and written down for us to read and understand.
John says
You continue to beg the question. Sure, Scripture commands us to forgive on the basis of the objective vision that you have just described and brought into our minds. What you condemn Dr Boyd for doing you do yourself. You are both right. We imagine the real object Jesus of the real ¡§historical record,¡¨ we envision our mountainous debt „³ gratitude ¡§whelms up in our ¡§HEART AND MIND.¡¨ Simple. We are impacted and the abstract becomes real.
There is nothing of a ¡§spirit creating a freestyle historical record¡¨ in Dr. Boyd¡¦s proposition. The Scripture has revealed the ¡§objective Jesus.¡¨ Because of this revelation man is accountable to surmise under the leadership of the Spirit to know and to ask ¡§WWJD.¡¨ Man has enough information about Jesus from the historical record to extrapolate (as the Spirit leads) to the many nuances of situations and behaviors he is confronted with in his experience. Hence, it is no great leap to assume that man can integrate the ¡§historical¡¨ Jesus into his imagination and construct scenarios in which the objective Jesus of the ¡§historical record¡¨ brings comfort, healing, instruction, motivation, etc., etc.
You reference terms such as ¡§believe¡¨ and ¡§read¡¨ and ¡§understand¡¨ as if they are sterile and occur in a vacuum. There is no narrative that does not immediately invoke an image. That is the brain works is wired.
I will reiterate from my prior post on this same thread that my intent is not to speak for Dr. Boyd. Rather, while I admire Spen Lake¡¦s zeal to defend truth, his assessment ignores the context that Dr. Boyd is addressing and grossly misrepresents my understanding of Dr. Boyd¡¦s methods and intensions. I encourage anyone with real interest to (re)read this entire thread where Spen lakes (repeated) assertions are further rebutted. My apologies to Dr. Boyd if my assessments misrepresent his position and intent.
To God alone be the glory,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/11/2004 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake
Nothing personal dude. No indictment of anyone's intelligence. I just disagree with your assessment of what is written in "black and white." You published your opinion. I published mine. You have been a forminable oppenent in debate. That is as far as it goes with me. My intent has not been to change your mind-rhetoric rarely achieves that between protagonist and antgonist. My intent has only been to offer an alternative to your proposal to undifferentiated readers. Those who care to invest themselves in reading the thread will decide which alternative is rational. That's all. I will call off the dogs.
Blessings,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/12/2004 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
No offence, perhaps other than frustration, taken. We are both defective sinners so sometimes frustration isn't surprising in a sinner (me).
If I understand you correctly, you believe that "truth" and "real" are ontological and factual. Definition of ontological = outside of one's person and objective? I think this is your claim. You then say that the INtological (new word for experienced truth and reality)is more important than the ontological fact because it is the only one that affects us. You don't believe or have faith that men can believe in the ontological without a spiritual experience supporting them - this is exactly what Dr. Boyd says in his book. Therefore, constructing a factually false INtological experience with the help of a spirit guide (you claim IS Jesus) and convincing ourselves of the "reality" of this INtological experience, is a great method to find freedom from sin. By calling the fact "ontological" and the phony "INtological," we have resolved any dilemma because spirits are only asking us to find freedom in INtolgoical experiences and not delusion.
I think that is what you mean, and I don't believe that I am being crass. You are claiming that I should find comfort in falsehood, but that it isn't really false because it is inside and because it "works."
I think that ontological fact is what matters. I have an ontological gun with factual bullets and I point it at you. You happen to not understand bullets or consider them irrelevant and therefore you don't respond when I point the gun at you. I promise you that when I pull the trigger, the ontological reality is going to be clear, regardless of your INtological faith. This above example is actually fairly common among the mystics. There have been several documented cases of the mystical prophets telling their followers that bullets would not harm them.
The Jesus and factual message that John the Apostle claims and communicates in 1 John 1 is ontological. If you find comfort and believe in an INtological Jesus, a spiritual Jesus, instead of the ontological one, you have no fellowship with John and those he is fellowshipping with. You are left with your INtological fellowship with no witnesses as to its reality but yourself and your spirit guide. John promises freedom in an ontological Jesus that he saw and experienced on the "outside" and you give me one that I need to mystically experience on the "inside."
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete."
I remain suspicious of your INtological truth and that false-truth is worth believing. The ontological truth of the gospel and its power to save and sanctify is sufficient, in spite of Dr. Boyd's assertions to the contrary.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/12/2004 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
February 6, 2004
Pastor Greg Boyd,
I have read your pamphlet “Seeing Jesus” concerning your teachings on imaginative prayer. Your introduction against trying harder as a solution was excellent. I agree with your arguments that only having an intellectual understanding of the truth will not result in eternal life. I find you consider the gospel as the introduction and beginning; your teachings after that introduction seem fatal and counter to your purposes. My argument is that, while you begin with the gospel, your teachings in “Seeing Jesus” lead me too far, not abiding in the teachings of Christ, to a subjective Jesus of my own making and imagination. While I appreciate that you give me freedom to follow the Jesus of my imagination and not the Jesus of the imagination of Greg Boyd, I still believe that this approach leads me to a false and deluding Jesus of my own making, a false peace, and ultimately to hell and damnation.
I posted an article concerning “physical interaction with spirits” on your website and I have enclosed a more thorough copy with this letter. The argument I raise defines an identifiable limit on “experiencing God” with objective boundaries concerning the examples of God/Man experiences you cite in your pamphlet. This article explains why I do not believe that it is biblical to objectively experience God now in the same way as the patriarchs. I think that this is important because of the implications of your arguments that failing to “experience God” in the “concrete, vivid, and powerful” intensity of historical biblical figures is settling for less than what God has made available, failing to bring about the transformation we need. Consistent with this approach, I have also attached a word study on “form” to bring into context the passage in Job that you cited to support your paper on page 59.
Spen, interesting....
I find it interesting when there appears to be THREE views to consider. In the first paragraph clipped above I find myself agreeing with you. However, in the second I hold that agreement back; because I know better. Interesting.
First, you express strong caution: "My argument is that, while you begin with the gospel, your teachings in “Seeing Jesus” lead me too far, not abiding in the teachings of Christ, to a subjective Jesus of my own making and imagination." And I think that caution is warrented. Even categorically. And I think that the church has used its creeds, and hymns and even icons (which are dogmatically restricted in what they present and how they are presented -- and are therefore not the work of someone's immagination: e.g., the resemblance of the manger to a crypt in Eastern Orthodox iconogra;y is no accident--it is a specific defendable statement!)
You follow that, in the same paragraph, with a summarizing sentence that I'm going to take as meaning that those who do practice this "imagination" are much more unprotected from things that can lead to "delu[sion] Jesus of [their] own making...false peace... and [vulnerability] ultimately to hell and damnation." I'm going to take you as not saying that it results immediately as an unforgivable sin.
But in the second paragraph, while I think you have reason to express reserve about the public physicality of God's presence in interacting with us, I have two reservations. Here they are:
1. Not everything that is physical is preceived. I'll say that again: Not everything that is physical is preceived. Part of perception is the thing perceived; but the other part rests in the perceiver. When Jesus walked with Luke and Cleophas on the road to Emmaus he was no less physically "there" than when he broke bread. But something about seeing is actually spiritual. That is, something about US, by design is spiritual. (We are soul and body, and the "spiritual" is a dynamic; just as "alive" is a dynamic. Our bodies can be spiritual--ss in Rom 12--or dead in sin.) An example from before his death and resurrection shows that some people, seeing the same dusty Jesus perceived him to be Lord, Messiah; while others just saw him as just another man.
2. My main reservation about your second paragraph is that it seems to limit all physicality--eliminiate it from the scenerio. One wat to notice what needs fixed in that is to think for a moment about biblical anthropology. Mankind is a microcosm of all of creation: we are both animal and spiritul, sensible and intelligible. And in that role we are mediators between God and the rest of creation. (This is the Orthodox view found so wonderfully in St. Maximus the Confessor from about 600 AD.) Simply, we have body and soul. Both. Saying that there is NO interaction with God in the physical runs askew to the nature God created us in.
Instead, we can remember: that our physical bodies can be presented as spiritual sacrifices (Romans 12); and that the Spirit really does produce "fruit" in us--our whole selves--healing spiritually BOTH our body and soul. (This would be why some saint's bodies do not decompose, but exude sweetness. The welcomeness-towards the Spirit in their very bodies is so present.)
So, HERE IS MY THIRD WAY.
A very physical, and not merely imaginative understanding of the revelation of God in our lives is found in Church. Needs repeating: A very physical, and not merely imaginative understanding of the revelation of God in our lives is found in Church. The making preent of the Word --and "accompanying" homily-- and the celebration of the Eucharist "makes present" by the Spirit the one sacrifice of Christ of worship and honor to the Father. Setting aside all medieval ideas about "accidents" and "ubiquity" the early church just knew that Christ's presence was "made present" by their own (the pastor and the people) gathering in the Spirit. Bread and wine remaining themselves, those real-symbols of life serve both as our gift to God (The superabundance (what wasn't used in church) of their offering was distributed to the poor.) AND God's gift: "holy things for those who are holy."
Yesterday we had communion on Easter Sunday for the very first time in our Christian Reformed Church's history. Together with all those gathered in Jesus Name, by the Spirit (the epiclesis) I ate Christ's body and drank his blood. This is NOT just for my mind's sake; this is physical stuff that by the Spirit benifits ALL of me. (There I'm more in sympathy with Calvin than Zwingli.) Body as well as soul. From the Fountain of Immortality (Christ) I receive the food of immortaility.
Further, in "my" (Sound's strange -- I don't 'own' it, I participate in it.) walk with the Lord, it is NORMATIVE to experience God in two ways -- in-directedly and out-directedly. (I'm makng up the terms...but its logical enough.) Out-directedly I experience God when I'm part of the conduit of his love and forgiveness. When I forgive and well I truly count as lost what is not mine in the first place, it is distinctly, palpabley THEN that I know God personally. "Where does the strength come from." we ask. But "our help is in the Name of the Lord." That "Name's" name is Jesus. And like an 'un-stucking' drain the more I am a contuit the more God's presence will flow through my body and soul!
And further too, in-directedly it is not my imaginations that profit me. (I'M CAUTIOUS/CONCERNED ABOUT DR. BOYD'S BOOK TOO.) The in-directed work of the Spirit (Fruit OF the spirit; not mimickry of my own design--that's mere ethics.) includes such strategies as Romans 5 and James 1. Trials, testing, correction, endurance, etc. Hopefully we all know that drill.
We ride the train called ourselves. It is not always intreguing--but it is real. Rather than "imagining" we have enough to occupy us in the work that God is doing IN US and THROUGH US!
I hope that I expressed this with clarity.
PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/12/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry for your frustration. Man I say if this board frustrates you take a break. We are only discussing things here and in mutual dialogue attempting to rightly divide the Word of Truth. We are not a Synod. I hope those reading the threads will glean truth and cull the rest. But that is between them and God. ¡§My sheep here my voice¡K¡¨ The believer WILL HEAR that which approximates the word of Jesus. The chaff will blow away.
Now to your latest assertions:
Again, with all due respect, I reject your interpretation of Dr. Boyd¡¦s proposition.
The antithesis of ontology is not ¡§Intology¡¨ but ¡§none existence.¡¨ I do not differentiate at all between ontology and the process Dr. Boyd desribes. The whole point is a method in which the same ontology you are refering to is integrated into man¡¦s experience as one and the same¡Xnot a different Intology¡Xwhich, although a ¡§none existent term, I believe is your reference to a ¡§free style spirit¡¨ which is precisely what I am rejecting.
[BTW to the readers¡¦ of this thread: Suspicion is warranted when a critique of one¡¦s position must invent a none existent word or concept to
make the opposing argument. Neither the word nor the concept relative to the antithesis of ¡§ontology¡¨ exists.]
You go astray from the get go with your limited definition of ontology (¡§outside of one's person and objective¡¨). Ontology, strictly speaking is ¡§a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being¡¨ (i.e., the nature of reality). You assume ontology must remain ¡§outside.¡¨
What I am saying [and what I believe Dr. Boyd is calling for] is a method to bring the objective truth which does exist in Jesus Christ into man¡¦s experience. Ontological concepts have no meaning or impact until they become a part of man¡¦s experience. For example, Justice, while existing as an otological and objective concept (which flows out of the Trinity) has no real meaning until man is faced with a decision and either accepts or rejects the concept.
The atonement is an ontological reality. However, the atonement has no [positive] impact on man until the atonement is integrated into his experience¡Xuntil one ¡§sees¡¨ the ontological status of his being as a ¡§sinner¡¨ and ¡§sees¡¨ the [ontological] work of Christ as his only hope of salvation. Dr. Boyd just extrapolates the same process into one¡¦s daily walk with Christ.
My interpretation of Dr. Boyd¡¦s proposal is that BECAUSE of the supreme ¡§importance¡¨ of the objective Christ revealed in the historical record (BECAUSE ¡§ontological fact IS, INDEED, what matters¡¨) man should make every effort to integrate ¡Vnot a ¡§free style¡¨ spirit into his experience¡Xbut the Spirit of the objectively revealed Jesus into his mind and experience. My interpretation is that he would reject any experience that is not wholly congruent with the revealed Christ of Scripture.
Hence, your illustration is irrelevant:
¡§I think that ontological fact is what matters. I have an ontological gun with factual bullets and I point it at you. You happen to not understand bullets or consider them irrelevant and therefore you don't respond when I point the gun at you. I promise you that when I pull the trigger, the ontological reality is going to be clear, regardless of your INtological faith. This above example is actually fairly common among the mystics. There have been several documented cases of the mystical prophets telling their followers that bullets would not harm them.¡¨
Dr. Boyd¡¦s proposal would reject any assertion/vision/experience/whatever that does not square with the ontological factual objective revelation of Jesus in Scripture. Hence, he is not a ¡§mystic¡¨ telling his followers of how to envision A FALSE Christ ( your bullets that do harm). He tells his followers what the real Christ is so that they can avoid conterfeits and so that they can experience in there life the very real ontological fact of the second person of the Trinity.
Now if the ¡§pie is left in the sky bye and bye¡¨ the ontological fact, while it certainly exists and certainly is important, is of no benefit. When man accepts the ontological fact of Christ and His revealed way (grace, mercy, et.al.)and incorporates this into his experience (e.g., neurons„³chemical interactions„³decisions„³action and attitude)„³Jesus living through me. I actually believe Dr. Boyd is just describing in pragmatic terms an aspect of santification and growing to be more like Christ. Ontology must become ethical and to do that the the ontological reality must be contemplated in the mind and the brain. That is Dr. Boyd's challenge. Nothing more...Nothing less.
I have been more redundant than usual for clarity. Let the reader decide. Your previous post indicates you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my position and interpretation of Dr. Boyd.
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/12/2004 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
You have so far avoided the issue that I raised in that the "spiritual Jesus" of Dr. Boyd says things that the ontological revealed factual Jesus doesn't. Namely, Jesus never calls unsaved sinners "good" but commands them to repent. The ontological Jesus of Scriptures claims that none are good but God alone, and calls Himself the Good Shepherd - claiming to be God.
You give me an INtological (I can define a term to mean spiritual experiences, which is safer than re-defining "real") Jesus that acts contrary to Scripture but is to be believed because we imagine that this is what Jesus would do. This leads us to ask, who defines what Jesus would do? I maintain that what Jesus would do is defined in the Bible, not our imaginations. If our spiritual "Jesus" committed adultery but it led us to truth, is this acceptable? I don't think you would go that far. You just allow for a Jesus who acts contrary to the written word, because you can imagine it and think it good.
Jesus objectively told us to obey the authorities He places over us. In this case it was a grandmother, who is due double respect. This INtological Jesus of Dr. Boyd encourages Greggie to talk back and claim to be good, in Jesus' name.
Page 120, "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."
Jesus, the ontological one, would never declare an unsaved sinner "good" and never encourage an unsaved sinner to "fight" for and defend his goodness to the authorities that are over him. Far from deserving a present, Jesus tells us that we deserve death. This is what makes the gospel so precious and gives those that believe in it the power to forgive others - underserved grace and unmerited kindness. If you think that Jesus would do this and this is supported in the Bible, please show me the Scriptures.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/12/2004 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Jesus, the ontological one, would never declare an unsaved sinner "good" and never encourage an unsaved sinner to "fight" for and defend his goodness to the authorities that are over him. Far from deserving a present, Jesus tells us that we deserve death. This is what makes the gospel so precious and gives those that believe in it the power to forgive others - underserved grace and unmerited kindness. If you think that Jesus would do this and this is supported in the Bible, please show me the Scriptures.
I think you're confusing two issues. No one disagrees that we are, by our developed natures, children of wrath and deserving of eternal punishment. What Boyd is referring to, is that each one of us is deemed worth Jesus dying for, each one of us is the one, lost sheep Jesus deems worthy of seeking out. Not by any virtue of ours, only by virtue of the worth God values each of us.
Because you were born, God deemed you worthy enough to die for, even if you were the only person who ever lived or who ever sinned and needed redemption. Witness the parable of the lost sheep.
This is what he's talking about. You were bought with a price, you alone were worth one Jesus dying for you. This is worth placed on you by God, not by your own merits. This is the message to a dying world, God loved each one of you enough to die for you alone.
Matthew 10:29-31 (NIV) "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father... So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
| 101 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:39 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 |
|
|