Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
As far as Im concerned the reconciliation of physical and spiritual realities vis-à-vis Revelation falls in the category of musings and thus either of us could be right or (more likely) we are both wrong. LOL! Well see.
At some point in the breaking of the seals, God will shatter the illusion held so strongly by the atheists that the physical realm is all that there is. I believe that occurs here, setting up the outpouring of the wrath of God which precedes Christ's millennium rule on earth:
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Rev 6:12-13
And I do agree that the big rip occurs in Revelation 21 the creation of the new heaven and earth. The difference I perceive is that this physical reality remains to some extent in Revelation 6 (sixth seal) - for the final, seventh seal and Christ's thousand year rule on earth (the Sabbath of Adamic man using the 7,000 year Jewish interpretation, the week allotted to Adam.)
As to the physics, we are approaching the same subject from different aspects - akin to wave/particle duality.
You identify dark energy as the vacuum (of space.) I identify dark energy as an outdent in the fabric of space/time, the opposite of a high positive gravity, space/time indent.
For the Lurkers: gravity can be visualized as a particle, a graviton. It can also be visualized as the geometry of space/time.
The effect on the expension/acceleration of the universe is the same.
Or to put it in other words, I see energy/matter being created as the universe expands a geometric change being the cause of energy/matter. I suspect you see energy/matter being the cause of the expansion of space/time.
In either case, space/time and energy/matter are phenomenons of the expanded universe.
Likewise we are looking at dimensions from two different aspects. You are perceiving extra-dimensions as compactified (string theory) whereas I am perceiving expanded dimension(s) from the big bang (higher dimensional dynamics.)
Perhaps that is why you have confidence in CERNs upcoming test to observe the so far undetected Higgs field/boson?
At any rate it always seems to come down to what we consider to be real.
In my view, at the root, physical reality is all geometry. Or as Einstein dreamed, to transmute the base wood of matter to the pure marble of geometry, I too assess the "marble" of the equation as the geometry.
Again I aver that it may be that what we detect as particles in four dimension space/time may actually be massless, i.e. shadows of extra-dimensional momentum we cannot detect (yet.) And further that these particles may be multiply-imaged from as little as a single particle in a higher dimension.
But again, well see.
At any rate, as I mused in 7900 - this physical reality, is like a stage play that was being performed for Adams benefit to reveal properties of God, e.g. that He is Good and not evil. But Adam jumped on the stage so here we, his descendants, are with a huge observer problem. We cannot clearly see the spiritual reality from here which is to say, while yet in the flesh. But that will change for all mortals when the heavens are rolled back like a scroll - or in the metaphor, the curtain (or firmament) falls. But the spiritual reality (in the metaphor, the audience) is what "all that there is" is "about."
The geometric scenario Ive outlined above fits that scenario to a T. But yours would work as well.
But well see
Oh, and I do not have a leading in the Spirit one way or the other whether the firmament is the speed of light as suggested in the Jewish interpretation. But I do have a Spiritual leading that it is a boundary which is not geometric per se - the spiritual "there" and physical "here" are not necessarily spatially separated. But what that boundary "is" (the curtain in my stage play metaphor) I don't know.
Oh, good grief.
Mary must be appalled at some of this veneration. She was a simple young girl who always put her son first in her walk. I don't think she'd be a happy camper these days.
Grieved to the max, likely.
Though perhaps Father has wiped away all tears for them there, already.
Christ distanced himself from her and from their former roles/relationship twice as described clearly in The Gospels.
Once at the temple at 12.
2nd time when they came saying His relatives were seeking him.
Given Christ doing the opposite of 'veneration,' adoration and worship . . . how can mortals dare to do otherwise than Christ on that score?
. . . . through demonically inspired cheek to the max, I guess.
I didn't realize that in praying the rosary . . . one says 5 OUR FATHERS for 50 hail Mary's. That makes pretty clear who gets the focus right there.
No wonder God is upset with such UnBiblical, UnChristian, UnGodly behaviors and focus.
Bringing God down to man's level by man's deeds, actions, constructions on reality AND raising man/woman to God's level by man's deeds, actions, constructions on reality
is not a good way to win God's favor.
Or Mary's for that matter.
Anything else implies a God that is not eternal and unchanging.
Another approach: If there is anything that is not God, then perfection, etc. cannot be attributed to that thing in the same way as it can to God. So the proposition "There is that which is not God," includes the possibility of evil, death, all like that there, especially if one understands evil as a "privation of good." To create light is to create the possibility of shadow, maybe?
With respect to prooftexting: Absolutely. But I'm also VERY antsy about saying that such and such a line in the OT is just wrong. Incomplete, yeah, but wrong?
And again, Maybe if I were smarter I wold have studied philosophy and linguistics, because my persistent sense is that one thing we are looking for in Theology is "The right way to say it," since our first concession has to be that every predication we make about God is wrong.
SO, with that as prolegomenon, what I take from the OT (and from the use of "abba" in the NT) is that it is licit and helpful to use personal language about God, as LONG as one holds onto the guiding principle that everything we say is wrong (but some things are WAY wrong, while others are just wrong.)
Do you have a comment on "Knowing (or seeing) isn't causing"?
Amen. One has to ask the question: Does the Holy Spirit lead a man into error and confusion and contradiction?
The answer is a resounding "no."
Some methodologies and practices may vary according to preference (I include infant vs. adult baptism here because both, when accomplished according to a reformed perspective, are not a means of acquiring God's grace but a sign and seal of God's grace.)
But doctrines such as justification by faith alone are intrinsic to a correct understanding of God's grace and the very reason we are saved. We are saved by Christ's righteousness alone according to God's unmerited mercy alone through faith alone in the One who has paid for our all our sins in full, once for all time, as ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.
Not everyone who is elect believes this today. But all who are saved will eventually come to this joyous knowledge and quickened understanding by the "renewing of their minds." Because God may choose a circuitous path for our walk, but when the Holy Spirit takes us by the hand and leads us, there is but one direction home.
I don't think He makes that analogy at all. In verse 29 of your passage it says: "29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you". Where do believers get their faiths? Do they produce it themselves? No, saving faith comes only from God:
Rom 10:17 : 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Now, where do we get ears to hear? :
Prov 20:12 : 12 Ears that hear and eyes that see the LORD has made them both.
Everything comes from God, not us. If Christ meant that we must cooperate, then the "ears to hear" that the Lord made were incomplete and ineffectual without man's help.
But [FK's teenagers] still have free will and, short of making them robots, that free will can produce catastrophic results no matter how much you 'own' them. They choose to obey you.
Sure they have free will, and do make mistakes. I exercise my "control" over them for their protection to the best of my ability. This ability is incomparable to the control that God has over His children. If I get everything I want, then they will both be spiritually and physically safe during my tenure over them. I have some, but limited power to ensure this. God, OTOH, has limitless power to get what He wants. Therefore, God will use that power to keep His children spiritually safe unto the time of ultimate glory.
Attainment first, award later.
Fair enough. :)
Impressive exposition, yet again, to this layman! Thanks.
Ping to timer
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.
Thanks Kolo. This appears to me to be as advertised, and very different from other prayers I have seen. I see no worship here.
Amen! Jesus loved and saved Thomas, even though Thomas needed to see for himself. We forget the other disciples had already witnessed Christ after the grave, and they, too, believed in part because they saw it was true. So Thomas wasn't asking for anything the other disciples hadn't already been given -- assurance through his own eyes.
Jesus acknowledges it will be more difficult for future believers -- "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." But with the Holy Spirit as their guide, they will eventually proclaim along with Thomas, "My LORD and my God."
And it's our very human nature to weigh and measure. The wonderful thing about God's grace is that once declared, all scales tip towards Christ.
Now, in that moment when you "get it", there is NEITHER any question of turning away or rejecting it, nor any apprehension of loss of freedom. The gift, as it seems, of "Getting it" delivers freedom, it doesn't take it away, and yet there is no question, at the time, of using one's freedom to reject the gift.
I really agree with you in how you describe "getting it". We would call this the unilateral work of the Spirit upon the elect, or future believer. When you say that there is no question of using one's freedom to reject, does that mean one has the power, but never uses it in these situations? If so, then our differences here are minuscule, if even distinguishable.
I'm not coming down on one side or the other of a theological dispute, not here. I am saying many of us have had an experience where something very like revelation overwhelmed our so-called "free will" and we found that overwhelming to be a gain, not a loss, of freedom.
Amen, and well said. :)
HD:I would agree with you to a point. I feel doctrine does matter.
WM:I think your right. Scriptural doctrine will lead us into a closer, fuller relationship with our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, but it does not save us. A great example would be Calvinism. Through this spectrum we enter into a fuller understanding of our relationship with God and grow because of it.
Amen.
Nor do those with incorrect doctrine have the full benefit of being in the body of Christ. That is they are constantly buffeted by bad doctrine, always uncertain of their own salvation. As the elect, they will be seen through by the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom. But in this life they will have a spiritual life that is to be pitied.
I think Baptism is a great case in point. If our practices differ on this it really is not a big deal, if it is not necessary for salvation.
Wow, that's it in a nut shell! There is nothing more fulfilling than the blessed assurance that once Jesus has you in his hands nothing can pull you away. Jesus will not lose any the Father has given him!
I don't understand what you mean.
So, I'm suggesting, FUNCTIONALLY it's like there's a charism given to the Church as a big, huge blob, and another charism given to the Successor of Peter as something like a pressure valve.
OK, I can see that comparison in its intent. It matches what I have been told elsewhere. Even so, I would respectfully disagree on the need for a pressure valve.
Yes, it always gets back to assurance.
If Christ has paid for our sins, once for all time, by the grace of God, how can we worry?
"...53. Resolved, to improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer. July 8, 1723.""BEING SENSIBLE THAT I AM UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT GOD'S HELP, I DO HUMBLY ENTREAT HIM BY HIS GRACE TO ENABLE ME TO KEEP THESE RESOLUTIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO HIS WILL, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE...
(Gasp! It's a list!)
"Jesus has you in his hands nothing can pull you away. Jesus will not lose any the Father has given him!"
Why does the second sentence necessarily follow from the first except to say that Christ will have no fault in any loss? You may have answered this for me before.
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.