Metacrock wrote:The term "father" is an analogical term. God is like and not like a father. all "likeness" also contains "no like" or it wouldn't' make sense. So we must be aware of both the positive likeness and the merely metaphorical nature of metaphors.
Agreed. God uses this term on himself, but it isn't the only term he uses. No problem here.
"... that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:2-4).
I agree no other name. Of course. But that doesn't mean all who are saved know that name, ti just means they aren't saved by another name.
Notice the part I re-quoted: that the gospel a person must hear is the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. They could call him Bob if they want; the important thing is knowing the
Person and what he came to do. What scripture is saying is that this is the gospel, and that it must be believed for salvation.
I agree with this, with the exception stated above. I think it's impossible to fully understand or grasp God with our finite human minds. I think God meets us all where we are and draws us to Him from that point. I think that if someone's understanding does not include the Christian Bible, that does not necessarily preclude them from encountering Christ.
Agreed, we cannot grasp the totality of God, and that he calls everyone and draws them. But they must understand the gospel or they cannot be saved. Otherwise it would be better to never send out missionaries, since that would only give people an opportunity to be lost that didn't exist before. Since we are ordered to spread the gospel, it must be necessary. But above all, we must trust God to be just and fair, whether he tells us every detail or not. All we know is that we must spread the gospel, and in order to do that, we must know it ourselves.
4-- Mysticism is not Christianity; it is never mentioned at all in the NT. We see a lot of personal relationship but never any rituals or postures or mind-clearing meditations...
wrong. it is. it doesn't have to be mentioned as such. it is talked about, it just doesn't use that term. excpet Paul does when he says "I will tell you a mystery." But the thing is they had different ways of talking about it. Chsitian mysticism is diverse. theres a lot there it's not just one thing. but it is in the bible.
Show me where anyone in the NT had to do certain things, assume certain postures, repeat certain phrases or words, etc. If it is in the Bible, please give the references.
And if you know "mysticism" is not confined to only one definition, then why do you keep insisting that I (or some other group of people) don't have it or understand it?
btw the Trinity is not mentioned as such in the bible. I bet you are inconsistent to allow this even though the term is not used but with mysticism you demand the term be used.
I'm sure I went over this before, but I'll try again. We know of the Trinity by the fact that three distinct individuals are called one God. They are not "modes" or "offices" but persons. Otherwise, many scriptures would be senseless, such as where Jesus was baptized and the Spirit landed on him, and the Father spoke from heaven, all at one instance.
Now contrast how I know about the Trinity with your claim about mysticism (which you need to precisely define). Where is any teaching, example, incident, instruction, etc. that supports your belief?
BTW, saying "I bet you are inconsistent..." is mockery. Please stop jumping to wild conclusions about me.
salvation is not missing from churches. the power of the spirit the anointing for service the second work of grace is missing.
What would you accept as proof of the power of the Spirit? Is it found in outward expression only? In miracles? You are saying that this power is missing; please show us the evidence. On the other hand, I can show you lack of salvation by what people believe, and in many polls I've seen, they deny one or more essentials of the gospel. That's why they are dead.
You are using the word "mysticism" in a more popular, contemporary sense, 2thePoint, than I have been using it in.
Great, finally we'll get your definition.
In terms of religion, "mysticism" generally means personal, direct encounters with the spiritual, including with the Spirit of God. I personally define a "Christian mystic" as anyone who believes in the basic tenets of Christianity and also has personal encounters with the Divine in prayer and worship. In my way of thinking (and in my experience), the evangelical Protestant branch of Christianity preaches practical Christian mysticism as one of its tenets. It's just that the term more often used is "personal relationship with God."
Your definition certainly is not the same as that of the "desert fathers" whose mysticism is overtaking the churches. That's why many of us don't use the term "Christian mystic", because it is so heavily associated with the pagan meaning.
Who is to say I never have such "encounters" with God? Who is to say this about entire groups of people? What I've been objecting to is your practice of labeling groups of people, or individuals you don't know much about, as being "unspiritual". And if your definition of "mystical" is identical to "personal relationship", then why use the more vague term? We must be clear that what Christianity is about is completely unlike other religions.
If this "personal relationship" is the same as that practiced by orthodoxy, then why do orthodox label people (and entire denominations) "unspiritual"? There must be a difference or we wouldn't be accused of this.
that's my definition, 2ThePoint-- Metacrock was just saying he agreed with it. But the "quote" command somehow didn't work quite right in his post, and it came out looking like he had said it. 