In another thread Kelly Jay made the following statement.
.. within the Christian faith
we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God
to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith
our walk is with God.
It is God reaching to us
not us reaching to God
If you are a Christian, do you agree with this statement?
I am of the opinion that Christians reaching to God is an essential element of our eternal life. This is stated many many times in the Bible. Its not only God calling and God reaching. James says:
James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.
This and similar statements are all over the teachings of the New Testament... that work, effort, reaching, looking, seeking, learning, improving are virtuous qualities that Christians must have.
Originally posted by Rajk999In fairness to Kelly, his post was in reply to to my Hindu comparison, where I spoke of enlightenment and Nirvana, and how like Christian's Hindu's sought 'oneness' and union.
In another thread Kelly Jay made the following statement.
.. within the Christian faith
we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God
to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith
our walk is with God.
It is God reaching to us
[b]not us reaching to God
If you are a Christian, do you agree with this stateme ...[text shortened]... aching, looking, seeking, learning, improving are virtuous qualities that Christians must have.[/b]
His response therefore was to reject this comparison with the Christian 'union with God' and it was this motivation that influenced his chosen terminology. - So, for example, 'not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God' was to differentiate from the Hindu preoccupation with enlightenment.
I don't think Kelly really meant that it was 'all God' and that believers are just passive onlookers.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThank you
In fairness to Kelly, his post was in reply to to my Hindu comparison, where I spoke of enlightenment and Nirvana, and how like Christian's Hindu's sought 'oneness' and union.
His response therefore was to reject this comparison with the Christian 'union with God' and it was this motivation that influenced his chosen terminology. - So, for example ...[text shortened]... 't think Kelly really meant that it was 'all God' and that believers are just passive onlookers.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell either way, what you are saying does not help his case. First Christ told his disciples to seek oneness with God, so on that point KJ is wrong :
In fairness to Kelly, his post was in reply to to my Hindu comparison, where I spoke of enlightenment and Nirvana, and how like Christian's Hindu's sought 'oneness' and union.
His response therefore was to reject this comparison with the Christian 'union with God' and it was this motivation that influenced his chosen terminology. - So, for example ...[text shortened]... 't think Kelly really meant that it was 'all God' and that believers are just passive onlookers.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:22-23 KJV)
Christ is clear here that his disciples are to be one with God through Christ. This is automatically seeking a higher level of understanding of God.
Next, I stated that the Bible does not support complacency after the Christian accepts Christ and his response was to claim that 'God calls' and quoted other verses which supports doing nothing. Again incorrect Christian doctrine.
Maybe you have noticed statements from Christians which condemn DOING AND WORKING. They believe that that is tryhing to earn ones salvation and this is an insult to Christ .. weird doctrine. Did you notice that KJ told me that "I'm quite sure Jesus dying for your sins and mine is such a piece of garbage to you.
Originally posted by Rajk999You seem to forget the context of the conversation, but that happens with you in discussions and when you deal with scripture.
Well either way, what you are saying does not help his case. First Christ told his disciples to seek oneness with God, so on that point KJ is wrong :
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou has ...[text shortened]... hat "[i]I'm quite sure Jesus dying for your sins and mine is such a piece of garbage to you.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell explain it then. In the context of the conversation where does the Bible support the idea that Christians do not have to reach to God.
You seem to forget the context of the conversation, but that happens with you in discussions and when you deal with scripture.
Originally posted by Rajk999If that were the full point being made you might have had an argument, but like nearly always you have missed the real point.
Well explain it then. In the context of the conversation where does the Bible support the idea that Christians do not have to reach to God.
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. I would say that you cannot answer the following question:
If I were to say "figure it out" would you think I was holding out on you?
In the context of the conversation [with G of D} where does the Bible support the idea that Christians do not have to reach to God.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat is interesting is how utterly constipated KellyJay is with pride and vanity. He has riffed on patently extra-Biblical notions many times before, and invariably reacts in a conceited and self-pitying way when called on it. He said he would provide Bible references to back up what he claimed but when pressed on it, it turned out he didn't have any such references. 🙂
I don't think Kelly really meant that it was 'all God' and that believers are just passive onlookers.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat possible "context" would justify you saying to Rajk999: "I'm quite sure Jesus dying for your sins and mine is such a piece of garbage to you"?
You seem to forget the context of the conversation, but that happens with you in discussions and when you deal with scripture.
What possible "context" would make you "quite sure" about that?
It all starts with God not us. Our walk with God starts with God not our desires to serve
God. In the case of those that do not bother or deny Jesus all together they did not
answer the Father's call. If it starts with God it is to God's glory we are saved not our own,
we cannot earn our way into God's good grace. If you are all about establishing your own
righteousness before God and man so be it, it will get you as far as your righteousness
can take you.
John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Galatians 4:6
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Acts 3:26
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
Going back to where I joined the conversation I was pulled into it by this statement.
"'Nirvana is a place of perfect peace and happiness. In Hinduism and Buddhism, nirvana is the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, where a person's individual desires and suffering go away, replaced with pure unity.'
Is that really a million miles away from heaven, from union with God?"
The state of 'Nirvana" is strove for a state of existence where the person finds peace, this
state within Buddhism is it God or just a plain of existence, is this place desired due to the
calling of God or the desire of the seeker within Buddhism?
Hinduism nirvana has so many different meanings and if I'm not mistaken another god
is part of the process that the meanings are completely different.
What is the main difference is again God, He gives us perfect peace and guards our
hearts and directs us. Again, not our human effort to earn something from God, but to
receive from God as we follow Him.
Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
2 Thessalonians 3:5
May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you believe that repeating the irrelevant answer to the question of HOW IT STARTS is going to help you explain your statement in the opening post?
It all starts with God not us. Our walk with God starts with God not our desires to serve
God. In the case of those that do not bother or deny Jesus all together they did not
answer the Father's call. If it starts with God it is to God's glory we are saved not our own,
we cannot earn our way into God's good grace. If you are all about establishing your o ...[text shortened]...
2 Thessalonians 3:5
May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.
Again .. it starts with God. Nobody is arguing that. So you can repeat it until the cows come home, all you are succeeding to do is making a fool of yourself ... AGAIN !!
The question is
CAN YOU JUSTIFY FROM THE BIBLE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT TO REACH TO GOD.
It is obvious that you cannot. So maybe you should just come out and say so.