Posted on 10/01/2013 6:06:28 PM PDT by markomalley
I know what you mean about somebody cutting you off in traffic. Wooo.. instantaneous grace needed here, just to bite my tongue!
Looking at the dozens of times the word "grace" is used in the NT, I would say (rough reckoning) that 2/3 of the time it's used in a blessing ---"Grace and peace be with you, " "May the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ abide with you," "Grace be with you all," --- so the Apostle Paul, and other apostles as well, are praying for grace to be extended to all their new converts and co-workers. This is surely the principal way that one "administers" grace --- the word that Paul used in Ephesians. The APostle, as pastor, intercedes, he prays that others may have an even greater measure of it.
Peter says grace has various forms, and again refers to his co-workers as God's stewards. And of course, what a steward does is assist with the ongoing distribution:
1 Peter 4:10
Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.
Peter says that in speaking, in serving, they are now doing so with the words of God, and in the strength of God. As members of Christ's Body, the Church, they are becoming participants in the very life and activity of God. This is true sanctification. This is grace.
There is nothing contradictory between having instant access to grace anytime to ask (and sometimes when you don't!!!) --- and receiving God's grace through the blessings invoked by the Apostles and their co-workers and successors, --- and receiving grace through others' intercessory prayer.
God accomplishes His works through His Body on earth,the Church. Paul says,
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.
And then again:
Ephesians 4:11-12
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.
So it is God who has placed all these offices in the Church. Can we say we don't need them? Paul's constant plea for the Body of Christ is this:
1 Corinthians 12:21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”
So I don't see how it's God-pleasing to say you don't need the Church. It would be uncomprehending or ungrateful, I think, for me to say "Jesus, it was pointless for you to have given us all this. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, unnecessary. Intercessors praying for me, pastors blessing me by praying for Your grace, unnecessary. Your Church is unnecessary."
And there would be a certain pridefulness for me to say that this Church, which, after all, is His provision, is just extraneous. It's like Naaman the Syrian saying, "The Jordan? You want me to waddle on down into the mud and bathe in that dirty little creek you call the Jordan??! No great God would use, nor need to use, such paltry material things, such paltry physical actions."
The whole OT is one example after another, in book after book, via prophets,press and kings, that God's grace and favor ae dispensed or apprehended or activated through physical actions. The OT is almost content-less, if that is not so.
God has given us multiple great signs that He indeed uses physical "stuff" and physical actions. Peter affirms that baptism was foreshadowed by the salvation of Noah and seven other people in his family at the time of the Flood; also by the parting of the Red Sea and the liberation of Israel from the midst of Egypt; also the crossing of the Jordan so the people could enter and occupy the Promised Land: God saves us by water; by Water and the Spirit.
And the same is true of all the Sacraments: enumerating them all would almost overwhelm Jim Robinson's bandwidth. God has always used these outward signs, and used them to convey the grace of salvation.
I don’t say that I don’t need the church.
The church exists and I am part of it. I need other believers. There is need for accountability to other believers and those whom God has called into leadership position.
What I’m saying is that attending church, Sunday worship services, should not be the mainstay of the Christians spiritual growth.
The OT is a different covenant than the new. It was a covenant of Law. Under the OT, the covenant was *If you do this, I’ll do that*. God actions were determined by the actions of man to a degree. The Law was bondage to man.
Under the new covenant, the covenant of grace, God’s actions are not determined in any way by ours. He is free to be faithful to us even when we are faithless. We are free from having to obey the requirements of the Law to receive God’s grace.
The whole purpose of the Law was to lead us to Christ. It never was intended as a means of salvation. It was to show us that we COULDN’T keep it and show us our need of the Redeemer. Everything in the Law pointed to Christ.
The problem many people encounter in life is trying to apply the OT principles to NT living. We still have this mindset that what we do influences God’s treatment of us. That’s why when things go south, people wonder if God is punishing them for something they did. Or if things are going bad, they get into the mindset of thinking *Well, if I just do this thing that I think will please God, then He will do ________*.
It doesn’t work that way any more. God gives us grace because of the new covenant, not because we performed actions that triggered the desired response from God. The Law of grace supersedes the Law of works.
Baptism and communion, under grace, are physical declarations of the spiritual reality the believer has already experienced. Because it is not under the old covenant, they do not CAUSE the spiritual reality.
I don't see that anywhere in the NT -- although it wouldn't surprise me if you see things I don't see, and I see things you don't see. Like when my husband calls me into the kitchen and says, "Look in the fridge and see if you can see the mayonnaise." And I say, "OK, but first could you look next to the bed and find my glasses?" :o)
Perhaps you could provide me with the texts where it says baptism and communion are "declarations"?
The Christian faith is centered around the Incarnation, in and through which Christ our God is constantly working in and through physical, material, and sensory things. It is Christianity's rival, Gnosticism, which taught the false, hyperspiritual view that God disdained material things and that humans should defocus and disregard the body and physical things generally, in favor of disembodied spirituality.
Why did Christ use physical things? Why did He use spittle, or mud? Why did He breathe on people? Why did He permit healing to be transmitted by touching the hem of His garment? Why did He permit people to be healed by Peter's shadow, or by cloths and napkins that had been touched by Paul? Here we have objects which become instruments of God's power. The God who used the bones of Elisha to cause a dead man to come to life (2 Kings 13:21), used, and still uses, material things. It's not just "the Sacraments" that are sacramental. All of created realty is sacramental.
"Because it is not under the old covenant, they [physical things] do not CAUSE the spiritual reality."
I may have expressed myself inadequately ("No!" "Yes!") but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that physical things "cause" spiritual reality. That would be some kind of superstition. God uses physical things because of His gracious condescension to us, His accommodation to our natures. It is His will and pleasure to involve His creatures very, very often as secondary causes of things of which He is the primary cause.
In some cases, it might be like a dad who lets his little son help move the piano. The dad doesn't "need" the little boy to help; but he knows the little boy needs to help. And that pleases Him.
Of course God is interested in the physical and our body is important to Him. Jesus took a horrible beating to procure our healing. Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds (stripes) we are healed.
We are to glorify God in our bodies....1 Corinthians 6:20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
One thing I have noticed over the last decades is a decrease in the recognition of the spiritual. We are spiritual beings who operate in both the physical and spiritual realms simultaneously. Believers are seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6) What happens spiritually affects the physical world and what we do physically has ramifications in the spiritual realm. But since what is seen is temporal and what is unseen is eternal, the spiritual realm is where the reality really occurs.
The problem with the idea that physical actions produce spiritual realities is that it precludes having the right heart.
For example, if the action of baptism is what saves, if it causes spiritual reality to occur, then is must do so always, without regard for the condition of the heart of the person being baptized. It must work because it does inherently.
If someone then says that it's the heart attitude that must also be right, then the action of baptism is does not really save, does not really cause the spiritual reality to take place.
That is why God drove Adam and Eve from the garden. The Tree of Life gives life by eating of it. If Adam and Eve had eaten of that fruit, they would have lived forever in a state of sin, forever beyond redemption. It was an act of mercy on the part of God to keep them from eating of the Tree of Life.
That's the problem with declaring that a physical action produces a spiritual reality. If it doesn't affect the spiritual realm PERMANENTLY, then it doesn't do it at all.
I read something interesting recently about prayer and cannot remember where I read it, but it is based on a verse in Psalms 115:6 The heavens are the LORD's heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man.
The gist of the writer's take on it is that this is why God tells us to pray for things, that He will not act on earth without prayer, man asking Him to. In that way, we can and do participate in what He is doing on this planet. It also puts a tremendous importance and emphasis on prayer.
I had never heard it put that way before, but thought it was an interesting viewpoint.
Yes. And as a Catholic, I can only agree. But "physical acts force spiritual changes to occur" is not what the Church teaches. A sacrament done merely for show is not a sacrament.
If kids were "playing baptism" in the swimming pool and baptized each other, it would not be a Baptism. If an actor --- even a priest-actor--- did it with all solemnity in a movie about a holy person, but it was just an "act," it's not a sacrament.
In the Sacrament of Matrimony, if one party or both demonstrably does not or did not mean it, the marriage would be annulled for reasons of fraud/deception, which would make their vows null and would not create a canonical marriage bond.
So the Church does not teach that physical actions in themselves cause spiritual reality to occur. That would be some kind of conjuring trick: or sorcery.
God makes no provision in Scripture for annulments. When two people have sex, they become one flesh. It creates a soul tie to the other person.
Malachi 2:13-16 And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
I have heard over and over all kinds of rationale for allowing annulment and most of the scenarios which are presented are so rare that they could virtually never happen, especially if the priest had been doing his job in pre-Cana classes in counseling the couple.
Scripture and Jesus allow for an out for a married person for adultery by their spouse. So there is no need to have an annulment.
For all the RCC's great stand on abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, they sure dropped the ball on protecting marriage by allowing annulments.
I must disagree with your principle that "When two people have sex, they become one flesh. It creates a soul tie to the other person."
Taken strictly, this leads to the rule that a rapist is required to marry his victim. Earlier this year I read about a 16-year-old girl in Morocco who committed suicide because of the decree under Sharia that she marry her assailant. The same is true in Deuteronomy.
A little reflection reveals that this one-intercourse=one-flesh view, paradoxically, would require most Christian spouses to annul their present marriages, since surveys show that the majority of Christians do not marry the first person they had intercourse with. In other words, even in the Christin world, most marriages are not marriages of two virgins.
There cannot be a covenant without an agreement to the terms of the covenant, and in the case of Christian marriage, there cannot be a Sacrament if the vows of one or the other wee fraudulent or intentionally deceptive from the git-go.
For a Christian marriage, the spouses must be eligible to marry, and choosing freely. They must intend a union which is permanent until death, exclusively faithful, open to the transmission of life; and the spouses must physically engage in marital intercourse, which consummates their union.<> Without these spiritual dispositions, there is no sacrament.
Unless you think that mere ritual words and physical actions convey the grace of the sacrament, regardless of the spiritual reality.
???
IN which case, I would be very much surprised!
Which IMO, could be the very reason for the death penalty for rape. God never tells us the reason for the consequences for breaking His law. He just tells us what they are.
But in the NT, Paul explains that in a marriage, a woman is freed from the marriage and not an adulterer on the death of her husband.
Not that I am saying that the rapist is a husband (sadly I've had enough experience with stuff I've said being twisted that I feel I need to make that disclaimer).
And you are right. That is NOT a legitimate marriage. Whether that act creates a soul tie or not, I don't know.
A little reflection reveals that this one-intercourse=one-flesh view, paradoxically, would require most Christian spouses to annul their present marriages, since surveys show that the majority of Christians do not marry the first person they had intercourse with. In other words, even in the Christin world, most marriages are not marriages of two virgins.
That is true. It is a problem.
I heard a preacher once talk about premarital sex and on his teaching about the soul tie did bring that issue up. His advice was that the past is the past and cannot be undone and that no-one can expect a person to end their current marriage, as that would also be wrong. His advice was to repent of the previous sin and ask the Holy Spirit to break that soul tie that was created in those other encounters.
Unless you think that mere ritual words and physical actions convey the grace of the sacrament, regardless of the spiritual reality.
Marriages done by a justice of the peace are also marriages, legally binding. I recall that the Catholic church does not consider marriages done outside it as legitimate, but the problem with that is that there are marriages all around the world done by non-Catholics. Since they did not receive the sacrament of the Catholic church, are they not legitimate marriages?
Good thing you've given me the opportunity to correct this, because this is not true. The Catholic Church teaches that the "ministers" of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the two baptized persons, husband and wife, who minister the Sacrament to each other. The priest is witness on behalf of the Church, but it is the couple who give the Sacrament. Therefore, assuming they are baptized, if they married anywhere (Baptist Church, Hindu ashram or City Hall) intending what the Church understands as marriage (lifelong, exclusive, sexual union open to procreation) they are MARRIED, and Sacramentally so.
" the problem with that is that there are marriages all around the world done by non-Catholics. Since they did not receive the sacrament of the Catholic church, are they not legitimate marriages?"
Yes, indeed these are marriages. They are Sacramental if the husband and wife are baptized (in any Chrisian faith); even if they are not baptized, they are still truly wedded in what the Church reecognizes as "natural marriage." We believe marriage is established and defined both by Divine and Natural Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.