Omnipotence of God

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator:Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
Post Reply
User avatar
unred typo
Posts:125
Joined:Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:03 pm
Location:Undisclosed location in the eastern USA
Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by unred typo » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:39 am

Websters Dictionary;

Pagan.

1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person.

I cannot see how any church would be able to discern which pagan concepts are true or not? be they true or lies. What true followers of Christ would even care?

I don’t care to find new ways to worship or find God through these practices or anything. I just am wondering how the grace of God has been demonstrated in people who have been cut off from the resources that we have, (the Bible, church writings, truths passed down through godly families, etc). It is just unimaginable to me that God has written millions of people off without giving them a(the) way of salvation. That doesn’t seem possible of the God that I know from scriptures.

Even in the OT when Abraham was living in a pagan nation, with a idol worshipping father, God spoke to Abraham. We have the record of this in the scriptures but does that mean that Abraham was the only person in the entire world that God had any dealings with?When people left off building the tower of babel, they took the knowledge of the one true God with them. Where did that knowledge go and how much of it is still floating around out there in paganland? :? Did he have no other people in any other countries that he spoke to? Does he have no voice today? IOW, is his arm shortened that he cannot save? This interests me because one of the questions we get asked as Christians is “What about those who have never heard?”
The truth will stand with you but man-made doctrines will melt away like cowards in the battle.

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by Theognosis » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:46 am

But knowing they are corrupted, and we have the truth, it is ridiculous to think we have anything to learn from them.
How about the Protestants REDISCOVERING the authentic Christian mystical tradition after studying Buddhism, Hinduism and the like?

The truth of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Church lost its spirituality several centuries ago, so naturally the Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. know nothing about the TRUTH of mysticism.

Until, of course, they stumble upon the writings of the Church Fathers and see for themselves that the mystical tradition was never lost thanks to the Orthodox Church.

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by Theognosis » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:59 am

How the West Lost Mysticism
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/43/story_4340_1.html

Union with God. Spiritual transformation. Discipline of the mind, discipline of the body, fasting, and ceaseless prayer. Sacrificial care of the poor and rejected. Expanding powers of body and spirit: clairvoyance, miracles, healing. Constant tranquility, even when facing persecution and death. Indestructible joy. Union with God.

Yep, that's Christianity.

Now, these are probably not your first thoughts when you think of Christianity. We don't often think of Christianity as a particularly spiritual religion; from the outside, it seems more about orderliness, decency, and good citizenship, with a special gold star for scolding others. Yet that's not what it's like from the inside--or, at least, not what it was like at the start.

"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20), Paul writes. Not mere metaphor here; the life of Christ would literally infuse and transfigure believers. "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), Paul says.

Jesus himself makes it clear that "Follow me" means not just following his teachings but surrendering to him personally. Jesus prays "even as Thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that [my followers] also may be in us...I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfectly one" (John 17:21, 23). Some kind of transformative union is intended here, and it lies beyond easy words.

In fact, if these scriptures weren't overly familiar, we would think they had an "eastern" flavor, redolent of mysticism. It's a reasonable association for a faith that, after all, began in the Middle East.

Here's how it was summarized by a seventh-century Middle Eastern bishop, St. Isaac of Nineveh: "Fasting and continual rumination on God give birth to the submission of the senses, then watchfulness of the intellect, and then the ferocity of the passions are tamed. Next comes meekness of thoughts, which leads to luminous movements of the mind, then to zeal for the practice of virtues. This gives way to subtle intuitions, then the flow of tears, the remembrance of death, and pure chastity which is remote from every imagination.

"From this," he concluded, "comes clairvoyance and then mystic perceptions which the mind can understand."

Now, next time you hear Billy Graham exhorting a packed stadium to anticipate luminous movements of the mind, give me a call. Somehow in the West, we stopped expecting mystical union with God through Christ; instead, we aim merely to be like Jesus. Unlike the early Christians, we don't even try to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5), seeking a transformed, illuminated mind.

In comparison, a "What Would Jesus Do?" wristband seems pretty tepid.

What happened?

Three moments in Western history tilted the balance toward a more external, less intimate faith. Most recent is the Enlightenment, which 200 years ago proposed human reason as the antidote for religion (a.k.a. "foolish superstition"). This attack motivated Christians to develop sturdy logical syllogisms to defend their faith, and ix-nay so much on the upernatural-say.
Christian faith is reasonable, so there was no falseness in presenting it that way. But it did shift the point of emphasis, and faith became drier.

Further back, about 500 years ago, the battles surrounding the Protestant Reformation made theological argument the prevailing mode of being religious. It came to seem that "faith" equaled "ideas about faith." Right biblical belief is vital, and confusion is spiritually disastrous. But the purpose of faith was being lost, as it shrank under fire to the mere content of faith.

Push further back, about 800 years ago, and observe the first cracks between heart and head, intellect and emotion. This false division has dealt lasting damage to the West.

One strain of medieval devotion cultivated a cloying fixation with Jesus as the bridegroom of the individual believer, rather than of the whole church. Some of these writings are overblown to the point of being disturbing. As sentimental piety grew, women gradually became the majority of churchgoers, an imbalance seen in most Western pews today. (My thanks to Lee Podles, who develops this thesis in his book "The Church Impotent.")

A contrary strain sought to define theological truth in exacting detail, most famously asking how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. In the West, Christian spirituality split between gooey sentimentality that could be cavalier about making sense, and theological tinker-toy construction that could be cavalier about enhancing faith. I once saw a poster reading: "I was wandering alone in a dark forest with only the light of a single candle to guide me, and along came a theologian and blew it out."

Yet union with Christ is not primarily either intellectual or emotional. It is ontological; it has to do with a real change in our essential being.

Can we Western Christians recover this? For those who perceive Christians as already too zealous, such an appeal for deeper commitment might sound dangerous. But this is a different kind of zeal, one that begins with repentance, that insists on non-judgmental love for others, and requires humility above all virtues. It abides under the shelter of ancient communal faith, because do-it-yourself mysticism is a recipe for self-delusion.

In comparison with the faith of the early church, present-day Christianity requires only comfortable effort, and expects only modest transformation. What might a faith do that demanded everything and forged union with Christ in the depths of the soul?

NOTE: I am posting all the content of the article so that 2thePoint would actually read it.

User avatar
2thePoint
Posts:51
Joined:Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:51 pm
Location:Ohio
Contact:

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by 2thePoint » Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:36 am

unred typo wrote:“What about those who have never heard?”
Here is a good article on this question:
http://www.biblehelp.org/qa.htm

I don't agree with every detail, but it does a thorough job of raising important questions related to various theories about this.

Remember those verses I quoted about condemnation? The key was belief in Jesus. We also have Jesus' own command to go everywhere and preach the gospel, so it must be necessary.

But the most important question is, do we trust God or not? If he hasn't seen fit to explain what he does with those who never heard, does that mean he is unfair? We must trust his judgment. God will do what is right and fair, whether or not we know how he'll do that. Our only concern is to obey what he did tell us, and he told us to preach the gospel to every nation.
Last edited by 2thePoint on Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.
Image

User avatar
2thePoint
Posts:51
Joined:Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:51 pm
Location:Ohio
Contact:

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by 2thePoint » Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:37 am

Theognosis wrote: NOTE: I am posting all the content of the article so that 2thePoint would actually read it.
Sorry, theo, you just lost the right to be heard. Continually insulting your opponent is not how to win them over. I'm done trying to communicate with you.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.
Image

User avatar
Hazard
Posts:61
Joined:Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by Hazard » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:47 pm

2thePoint wrote:Let me try to catch up in one post...

unred typo,

Thanks sis. ;-) And yes, I'm a she. For all I knew I wasn't communicating with anybody, hence the farewell. But now I know otherwise, so here I am.

As for "connections", Paul did say,
1 Cor. 9: 19Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
We could take this several ways, but none of them would be more likely than the others. But from what we know of all Paul wrote, there was no compromise of the truth in him. What I see here in this passage is Paul trying to relate to various people in order to communicate with them, and what was to be communicated was the Truth, the Gospel (to "win"). So I don't see him looking for common truths or teachings with unbelievers, but ways to be the "slave" of all people in order to get them to listen.

In Athens, when Paul said "I'll introduce you to this 'unknown god' you worship", I do not think he was saying they actually worshiped the true God, but that there was a God they did not know (he specified that they were ignorant of this God), and he saw a foothold for telling them the gospel. We should also remember that in Romans Paul said all people are without excuse for knowing their is a God; this accounts for the practically universal quest for the spiritual. But he also said "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—" (Rom. 3:25). The fact that this is in the past tense tell us that now there is no more tolerance for unbelief or ignorance of the truth, the one true God. That is why it is so vital that we obey the Great Commission.

My point here: we are not to look for commonality with other religions in order to learn from them, but in order to witness to them. Very important distinction.

Theognosis,

Those simple words of the publican were said once, from the heart. But everything I've read about the "Jesus prayer" has it being repeated until an altered state of consciousness is achieved. Those two things are completely at odds. Jesus specified, "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words" (Mt. 6:7). This "vain repetition", as the KJV puts it, is a pagan practice we are not to copy.

To "pray without ceasing" says nothing about repeating a set of words over and over, but about persistence and attitude and fellowship. I never think of God as far away or someone I must go to visit, like some nursing home resident I only see on occasion. No, I think of him as my constant companion, as always there to talk to. That's "prayer without ceasing". And we must be careful in what we draw from the OT, since now the "curtain" is torn in two and we can "come boldly to the throne of grace". There is no more separation between God and those who belong to him. We actually have his Name on us as believers.

I still see no "official ecclesiastical governing body" in the NT, that is above the "elders" who were in each assembly, not one over-arching group over all the assemblies.

What I discount is that we can learn any truths from pagans. They are lost, in darkness, blind. You say that their beliefs "are but corrupted forms of the original form of worship". But knowing they are corrupted, and we have the truth, it is ridiculous to think we have anything to learn from them. We are not to drink water from polluted streams. Truth does not lie underneath "pagan embelishment", it is in the Bible. They need to learn from us, not we from them.

Show me exactly what Noah, Abraham, Isaac, et all "meditated" and give details on what that involved. You're not talking about "spirituality' but meditation, and they are not synonymous. Did you read nothing I said about my own spirituality? I think about God, study the scriptures, and practice what I see there; there is no chanting, repeating, emptying... and yet I have "spirituality". So your claim is a straw man; nobody says spirituality "was never a part of Christianity". But we do say pagan meditation was never a part of it.

Hazard,

Good question, "who would care" to look for bits of truth among the lost? We have the Bible, the witness of the apostles, the Holy Spirit; there is nothing of truth to learn from the lost. "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1). He has spoken.
Very well said.

Haz.

User avatar
Hazard
Posts:61
Joined:Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by Hazard » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:56 pm

Theognosis wrote:
I cannot see how any church would be able to discern which pagan concepts are true or not? be they true or lies. What true followers of Christ would even care?
You cannot discount outright everything that is pagan. Afterall, revelation did not begin in the Christian era (although Christianity PERFECTED it). To a Creationist, all can be traced back to the flood. With this in mind, it can be said that the various pagan beliefs are but corrupted forms of the original form of worship. Hence, underneath all the pagan embelishment lies the truth that was revealed to our ancestors.

As far as spirituality is concerned, many in the Bible went to the mountains in order to meditate. To name a few, there's Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ himself. What's problematic is when people try to make it appear that spirituality was never part of Christianity, and that correct meditation is merely an intellectual excercise. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
And,
"How about the Protestants REDISCOVERING the authentic Christian mystical tradition after studying Buddhism, Hinduism and the like?

The truth of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Church lost its spirituality several centuries ago, so naturally the Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. know nothing about the TRUTH of mysticism.

Until, of course, they stumble upon the writings of the Church Fathers and see for themselves that the mystical tradition was never lost thanks to the Orthodox Church"
.

To meditate is to think about, to plan, to intend, to ponder, to consider, to ruminate. To pray is to simply talk to God. To thank God, to ask God, to have a relationship with God.
I can and I do discount everything that is pagan.
Paganism began with Nimrod and it continues down through the ages untill this day in the majority of the churches of the world. The city Babylon was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter (Gen. 10:8-10). It was the seat of the first great apostasy against God after the flood. Here the Babylonian Cult was invented by Nimrod and his Queen, Semiramis. It was a system claiming the highest wisdom and ability to reveal the most divine secrets. This cult was characterized by the word "Mystery" because of its mysteries. Beside confessing to the priests at admission to this cult, one was compelled to drink of "mysterious beverages," which says Salvert (Des Sciences Occultes, Page 259) was indespensible on the part of those who saught initation into these mysteries. The "mysterious beverages' were composed of wine, honey, water, and flour. They were always of an intoxicating nature, and untill the aspirants had come under the influence of it and had their understanding dimmed they were not prepared for what they were to see and hear. The method was to introduce privately, little by little, information under seal of secrecy and sanction of oath that would be impossible to reveal otherwise. This has been the policy of the Roman Church and the secret of the power of the priests over the lives of men whom they could expose to the world for their sins that have been confessed to them. Once admitted, men were no longer Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians, but were members of a mystical brotherhood, over whom was placed a Supreme Pontif or High Priest whos word was final in all things in thelives of the brotherhood regardless of the country in which they lived. The ostensible objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven, and her Son. The last two were only objects of worship, as the Supreme Father was said not to interfere with mortal affaires (Nimrod 111, Page 239). This system is believed to have come from fallen angels and demons. The object of the cult was to rule the world by these dogmas. Much more can be said but to simplify things, Damasus, Bishop of the Christian Church at Rome, was elected to the office of Supreme Pontif. He had been bishop for twelve years, having been made suchin 366 A. D. through influence of the monks of Mount Carmel, a college of the Babylonian religion originally founded by the priests of Jezebel and continued to this day in connection with Rome. So, in 378 A. D., the babylonian system of religion became part of Christendom, for the bishop of Rome, who later became the supreme head of the organized church, was already Supreme Pontiff of the Babylonian Order. All the teachings of pagan Babylon and Rome were gradually interspersed into the Christian religious organization. Soon after Damasus was made Supreme Pontiff, the rites of Babylon began to come to the front. The worship of the Roman Church became babylonish, and under him, the heathen temples were restored and beautified and the rituals established. Thus, the currupt religious system under the figure of a woman with a golden cup in her hand, making all nations drunk with her fornication, is called by God "MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT."

The first practice that grew up after this union was the introduction of the worship of the saints, especially of the virgin Mary. Thousands of pagans entered the church in those days who were accustomed to worshiping the gods of towns and places, who were not thoroughly Christianized. The veneration of saints and holy men became a worship. Saints were considered lesser dieties, whos intercession availed with God. Places connected with the lives of holy men were considered sacred and pilgrimages were started. Relics or bones of saints were believed to have miraculous power. The worship of the virgin Mary was set up in 381 A. D., three years after Damasus became bead of the Babylonian Cult.

Just as the Babylonian cult worshiped the "Queen of Heaven and her Son" and did not worship the Supreme Father because he simply did not interfere with mortal affairs, so the Roman Chrurch has a similar worship in that they worship Mary as the mother of God and her Son. The image of mother and child was an object of worship in Babylon long before Christ was born. From Babylon it spread to the ends of the Earth. The original mother was Semiramis, the beautiful queen of Nimrod, who was a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness.

In the "mysteries," which she had the chief part in forming, she was worshiped as Rhea (Chronicon Paschal, Volume 1, Page 65), the great "Mother of the God's" with such atrocious rites as identified her with Venus, the mother of all impurity. She raised Babylon, where she reigned to eminence among the nations as the great seat idolatry and consecrated prostetution (Hesiod, Theogonia, Volume 36, Page 435). The apocalyptic emblem of the harlot with cup in hand was one of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece, for thus the Greek Venus was originally represented (Herodotus, Historia, Book 1, cap. 199, Page 92).

Ironicilly the Roman Church has taken this as her emblem. In 1825 a medal was struck bearing the image of Pope Leo X11 on one side and on the other side Rome symbolized by a woman with a cross in her left hand and a cup in her right hand and a legend around her "Sedet Super Universum"; that is, "The whole world is her seat."

From this original practice, practically all nations have copied a similar worship, but in each land the same figure is carried out under different names. In Egypt the mother and child are known as Isis and Osiris; in India, Isi and Iswara; in Eastern Asia, Cybel and Deoius; in pagan Rome, Fortuna and Jupiter-puer; In Greece, Ceres or as Irene with Plutus in arms, etc. In Thibet, China, and Japan the Jesuits were suprised to find the counterpart of the madonna (the Italian name for virgin) and her child as devoutly worshiped as in Rome itself. Shing Moo, the mother of China, is there represented with child in her arms and a glory around her exactly as if a Roman artist had paintd her. Where did these nations get this common worship if not from Babylon before the dispersion by God in the days of Nimrod (Gen. 11). Thus the worship of Mary in connection with her Son is of Babylonian origin for there is no mention of such worshipin Scripture.

User avatar
Hazard
Posts:61
Joined:Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by Hazard » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:03 pm

2thePoint wrote:
Theognosis wrote: NOTE: I am posting all the content of the article so that 2thePoint would actually read it.
Sorry, theo, you just lost the right to be heard. Continually insulting your opponent is not how to win them over. I'm done trying to communicate with you.
Good one "2thePoint," Insulting anyone is a crock! No need for it at all.

Haz.

User avatar
2thePoint
Posts:51
Joined:Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:51 pm
Location:Ohio
Contact:

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by 2thePoint » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:08 pm

Hazard wrote:Very well said.
Tanx Haz. 8-)
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.
Image

User avatar
2thePoint
Posts:51
Joined:Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:51 pm
Location:Ohio
Contact:

Re: Omnipotence of God

Post by 2thePoint » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:22 pm

Good job on that post about Babylon too, Haz. I've read bits of that in other places and it's very interesting to study.

It also touches on another important point: the pagan influence of all that even on the Protestant churches. There is some evidence of the beginnings of clergy/laity class distinction before Constantine, and after the apostles died, but Constantine gave it teeth. We should also note that the NT was largely written in response to false teachers trying to subvert the faith before many churches formed, and they expressly stated that "ravenous wolves" would "scatter the flock" after their departure. That is the reason we cannot take what some people practiced at that time, or what some "church fathers" taught, as being right or true just because of their proximity to the first century.

I am an "out of church" believer. After over 40 years in "the Institution" I left cold-turkey, although I resisted the call for a while. I wrote about it at This Link. My family and I study the Bible at home and invite anyone who wants to come. No hierarchy, pews, altars, pulpits, worship teams, or anything else from ancient Rome and Greece.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.
Image

Post Reply