Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Holy Spirit is not the faith; within your perspective, this is what I meant by "the source of the revelation is not a doctrine." Now, you can say that the Holy Spirit transforms the soul, with an effect similar to brainwashing - and that without this, the person cannot choose to believe...

...in other words, "the people do not decide the faith"...

...but then you are reducing Christianity to a mystery cult, one that cannot be adhered to without special revelation. Come to think of it, are you Gnostic by any chance?

Choose to believe, choose to adhere, same semantic distinction as faith and doctrine; you don't get to criticise people for not understanding how you are using words, while also criticising people for the words they are using.

That said, once again, the Holy Spirit gives the revelation; the doctrine is how that revelation is interpreted by man. This can be readily proven by how many different denominations of Christianity there are; each claims the revelation of the Spirit, yet they do not agree on doctrines derived from it.

Just consider the Eucharist, for one example.

As the question of whose doctrines are actually The Faith, only its Source knows for sure. But it is clear that they are interpreted by man, codified by man, and to any non-omniscient observer decided by people.


Nor do you, that you should regard yourself as an arbiter of who does or does not. Your testimony is one that drives seekers away from The Faith, one that tells them that yours is a path on which no steps can be taken at all without a specific act of divine intervention.


Not at all.


Sadly enough, even that concept is subject to disagreement among the various denominations. They agree that some sort of born-again needs to happen, but disagree that the others properly understand what it means. There are at least three general schools of thought:

-That the rebirth is the consequence of sacrament (eg, Catholics and Lutherans); the new life must be sustained by continued faith(fulness.)

-That the rebirth is the consequence of faith (trust) (eg, Methodists and other evangelicals.) This view is generally rooted in Romans 10.

-That the rebirth is the consequence of divine fiat alone (eg, Calvinists and others in the Reform movement.) These tend toward belief in predestination based on Romans 9.

-----

You seem to be of the last view; but again, if someone cannot believe (that is, become an adherent of the Faith) without a special initiation by the Holy Spirit, then it's not much different from a mystery cult.

What you believe is a mystery cult, then; because you are asserting that your book is written in a secret language that resembles English, but is incomprehensible without knowing a secret code only known to insiders. The secret code, in your case, is the Holy Spirit.


"Think not that I have come to send peace on earth: I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - Jesus, ca. 30 CE, according to Matthew 10.

Jesus described himself as an agent of division, of disunity - someone whose call to follow him would destroy families with internal strife.

----

Also, what you believe is by the spirit of man. Specifically, it's the spirit of the man Paul of Tarsus, who after being knocked off of his a** and onto his a** by the Flash-O-Light and Booming Voice in Acts 9, eventually decided that his supernatural revelation uniquely qualified him to set the doctrine of his revelation (that which he called his gospel several times) above even that of those who watched Jesus feed Legions of hungry groupies, chill with Moses and Elijah, be dead and then alive, and ultimately exit stage up.

Yes, his "superlative apostles" and "circumcision party" that he was ranting against... they were the Twelve.


Or it could be:

No one is right, and the right answer has been forever lost to time;
No one is right, but someone was, and the right answer may be rediscovered;
No one is right, and the right answer has yet to be found.


And each of them thinks that only his bowl has veggies, while the others only have white rice and the delusion that the rice is brown.


I'm not being dishonest, nor doing anything with strawmen. You can accuse me of tu quoque if you'd like - I'll cop to that freely; however, here is the problem. I don't believe that the notion of the Holy Spirit as you hold it exists. Thus, it's neither inconsistent nor dishonest for me to say that you don't have it.

Even within your worldview, it is not reserved for you to judge, nor to pronounce judgement. You can say you're being an imitator of Paul, as he of Christ, of course; but God alone is the judge of all things, especially in matters related to Its gifts and plans toward each and every person. So that's not a strawman either. The Jesus of the gospels did not apportion to you the right to judge (lest ye be judged,) nor to ignore your own blindness to rub someone else's eyes - the same Jesus you say you preach.

I can see where you are trying to say there's a strawman though. I'm not sure if I can even describe it in a way that you won't dismiss out of hand, but it won't stop me from trying.

Within your worldview, you hold this doublet of beliefs:
"People do not decide (choose) the Faith; the Faith decides (chooses) the people." That is, that according to you, someone can't even attempt to seek God without first receiving a special gift from the Holy Spirit. Within your worldview, you are convinced that you can't be wrong, and that other people would become right if and only if they had the Holy Spirit as you believe you do.

But here's the thing. The prodigal son didn't get a call from his father on his Hagiophone, telling him to come home. He did that on his own; he considered the alternative (the far country,) decided (determined) that the far country was actually kinda shitty compared to home, and decided to go home. He decided (chose) the Faith.

And no. The truth doesn't speak Süörejene, that it should need an interpreter.

Paraphrasing. You are making the claim that the actual meaning of scripture is incomprehensible to those who don't have the Holy Spirit. And there is no functional difference between the separation of spiritual and natural discernment, and Thieves Cant or similar secret languages. The words are English, but outsiders can't understand what's really being said.

Where the comparison to mystery cults comes in is this: because of this distinction, you say that the natural cannot know the true reality of the faith... and cannot without a specific initiation (in your case, by the Holy Spirit.) That's exactly how mystery cults operate.


Actually, what you said was this: "the Spirit of Christ is unity of all things godly, not disunity or division."

1. The Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit; they're different subsets of God in the formulation of the Trinity, but mutually exclusive with respect to each other.

2. I'm sure you can recognise that the plain words of Jesus are that he did in fact come to bring division - symbolised by a sword and expressed in home-wrecking violence - to the world. This Christ is a fellow subset of the same loving God who desires all people to be saved. Or not?

So, in the name of a desire to unify all people in himself, Christ has come to bring violent division within the family-groups of those very people.


I explicitly said that "Now, you can say that the Holy Spirit transforms the soul, with an effect similar to brainwashing - and that without this, the person cannot choose to believe..."

That's not the same thing as "the Holy Spirit is brainwashing."


Childish means? First off, I'm not trying to "win" anything. I see a statement (your OP) that to all of my sensibilities, experiences, and insider knowledge of Christianity (specifically through a Lutheran perspective) is not in accord with reality. It rings false in my senses, in my mind, and in my soul.

Second, I'm not using ad hominem by lack of credential, with intent to shut down all conversation. I'll explain how it works, just in case.

1. Anyone who opposes my view lacks the perspective granted by/to my view necessary to harbour a valid opposition; therefore, such oppositions are not to be considered.
(The perspective is the credential; the dismissal on its ground is the ad hominem.)

2. Anyone possessed of that perspective necessarily shares my view, and thus has no incentive to harbour a valid opposition.

3. As (1) cannot produce opposition to my view, and (2) will not, my position is therefore unopposed.

4. Therefore I am right.
(Admittedly, I could be off about you going this far; but in every case where someone's method of argument revolved around "outsiders can't understand, so their objections are invalid," this was their conclusion.)


You used the word decide.
Decide has two typical definitions, either of which can be used in your doublet: determine, and choose. This means your formulation is vague; and my failure to guess at what you meant does not constitute a strawman. So going back to your doublet, using determine instead of choose.

"The people do not decide (determine) the Faith; the Faith decides (determines) the people."

Again, people do determine the Faith, by describing it with language and codifying it as doctrine. This cannot be denied; the question arising from it is "is this doctrine in sufficient accord with the Faith to be considered correct?"

(Note that this works however you decide determine should be defined.)

Answering this is complicated by passages like:
-2 Cor 11 (wherein Paul describes the problem of false apostles - namely the Twelve - pretending to serve God but really being agents of Satan)
-1 Kings 22 (wherein, according to the true prophecy of Micaiah, God sent an angel to Ahab's court prophets to deliver a false prophecy to them)
-Ezekiel 26 (the prophecy against Tyre which turned out to be false)
-Jonah (the prophecy against Nineveh, being delivered to Jonah as sure thing, but falsified by Nineveh's repentance)

This is because now the answer now has to consider the possibilities, whereby an apparently (and even "certainly" ) true inspiration or revelation could be false because of:

-Being an act of Satan pretending to be God
-Being false and intended to entice another to destruction
-Being false and intended to intimidate another into repentance with the threat of destruction

Or, in short, we have the problems of Satan playing God, and of God having a plan that evidently includes acts of deception on Its part.

This does mean that people must determine the Source of the inspiration, determine whether it should be listened to or not, and then appropriate action taken... and even then could be wrong despite all conviction to rightness.

----

Now for the second part, "the Faith decides the people." If decide still means determine here, then I can actually go back to something I said before about that:



A religion, or body of doctrines, is prescriptive, and therefore determines (what) the people (should be).

Part of the reason I shifted to "choose" was that your response was strange and led me to believe that you'd rejected this view.

And "change" is not a valid definition of decide, for reference.

Oh my deer, with antlers and everything. I was working on a reply for literally 2 hours and then I didn't save it then it asked me to log in and its not there. I messed that one up.

Since it is all gone, and I will not take the time again to redo it all, I will be brief.

Concerning the doctrine and the spirit of Jesus and the Holy spirit, you say they are different. I tell you to read the chapters in John Chapter 14 through 17.

I explicitly said that "Now, you can say that the Holy Spirit transforms the soul, with an effect similar to brainwashing - and that without this, the person cannot choose to believe..."

Admitted. That one is incorrect of me. you did not explicitly say that, my mistake. However, I wont further argue this matter. Point in fact, as I said before. Unless one is born again and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and savior, and that he died on the cross and was raised again will he have the holy spirit.

I see a statement (your OP) that to all of my sensibilities, experiences, and insider knowledge of Christianity (specifically through a Lutheran perspective) is not in accord with reality. It rings false in my senses, in my mind, and in my soul.

I think what you mean is your sect decided what the text and teaching was, instead of the teaching speaking for itself. Is this correct?

Also I am not arguing that I am right on the "basis" that just no one understands and I do therefore on that "basis" I am right. No, not by the rules and logic of argumentation. But that is not what I am arguing. What I am talking about is a relationship with God, and that cannot be proven accept by they who are actually in a relationship with Him, it will be proven to them only.

You used the word decide.
Decide has two typical definitions, either of which can be used in your doublet: determine, and choose. This means your formulation is vague; and my failure to guess at what you meant does not constitute a strawman. So going back to your doublet, using determine instead of choose.

Sure did, no doubt a straw man. Here's how. I had already told you before that your usage of the word "Choose" was incorrect, yet you persisted on with it. Later you give me the definition which has two options. Logic dictates, if there are two options and I tell you which one is wrong, that only leaves one other, yet you persisted to use the incorrect one that I made mention. This is a straw man for sure, unless at least one of us made a mistake. let me know if you can find one.

Everything under that which you quote by means of verse location and paraphrasing and your conclusion is a straw man if ever I saw one so clearly. Look, Sandokiri used to be a Lutheran, she will guide you by her three step process, because its impossible that there should actually be any other option or answer, She didn't find an answer, Why should you? BUY NOW. Now I am making fun of you because of how sloppy and silly this is.

Inside of that straw man, there is a red herring. you named four places which you see a cause for error. This is a red herring, but you would escape that by saying no, its an example. Uhuh...sure..Unless I decide to comment on it? you are the one who took those passages up. I will not answer those there, but I might if you made thread, otherwise you are wrong about your conclusion, explained above.

However, a doctrine can contain a description of what it holds a person to be; and/or it can contain a prescription of what it holds that a person should be. If this is what you mean by "decide," then you are at least half right.

IN so many words. But if someone truly believes in the Lord Jesus Christ then they will be changed by the Holy Spirit, so not really only a description of what they ought to be.

I hope I haven't missed anything, I made this second reply in haste. Still weeping over my last one which was a million years long

That is an interesting topic the doctrine of the trinity even though it is veering off.
Lets see. I know of only two places that people get the trinity doctrine, which I do not disagree with, but perhaps see it differently than you, however still seeming uncertain.

Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

and


1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

____________________________________________________________________

There seem to be three something. But no mention of the spirit of Christ. Maybe one will say the "Son" is referring to the spirit of Jesus. The reason this is being brought up is because you said:

The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are different. Is this correct? And if so, what indication is there, and why are they different, what is the purpose of them being different? These questions need answered first.


Can you explain what this means --& I suppose what bothers me on this point is the idea that one needs the Holy Spirit, in light of Romans 9: that it is possible for a seeker, receiving the words of the Bible, to bloody her knuckles knocking (Matthew 7.) Yet the door may never open, because God has ordained that she be a "vessel made for destruction," and thus can never find; yet this will be held against her eternally.

Who is the this girl, and specifically what verses.

Not a fan of Reformed theology. If you happen to be of one of the Reformed churches (eg Calvinism,) just let me know and I won't continue, so that we don't bloody each other's brows continuing to butt heads.

I am none of the above. I am non-denominational Christian. Ive never been to a church, and Ive never been indoctrinated by someone else believe/teaching/denomination.I do not read books on Christianity or anything of the sort. I read and I study and I learn. If its in the Bible I believe it. This raises the question about interpretation however.

I'm not going to try to escape it, nor accept the charge of red herring for it, because I think it's vital to whether "people don't decide the faith"

You will have to expand on the above line for my understanding.

I realize the holy spirit and the spirit of God are the same spirit. But what IS the spirit of Jesus apart from the spirit of God?

Now as far as Romans 9, this is where the Calvinists get their doctrine? But you are not Calvinist. What do you say about it?