I don't know much about Wilbur. Does one have to first experience despair to be able to recognize and transform it? The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh compares sati, or mindfulness (the Buddhist pactice of taking hold of your consciousness and keeping it alive to the present reality, to see things as they really are), to that of the Holy Spirt: To me, mindfulness is very much like the Holy Spirit. Both are agents of healing. When you have mindfulness, you have love and understanding, you see more deeply, and you can heal the wounds in your own mind. The Buddha was called the King of Healers. In the Bible, when someone touches Christ, he or she is healed. It is not just touching a cloth that brings about a miracle. When you touch deep understanding and love, you are healed. "To me, mindfulness is very much like the Holy Spirit. All of us have the seed of the Holy Spirit in us; the capacity of healing, transforming and loving. Where there is suffering, mindfulness responds with the energy of compassion and understanding. Compassion is where the rivers of Christianity and Buddhism meet." Wow, sounds a lot like rebirth.
Grizzled, Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit produces good fruit in the life of a Christian. There are certain attributes of God that a Christian cannot exhibit, though. In Galatians 5:22, Paul does not list omnipotence, omniscience, or sovereignty among the fruit of the Spirit. God is sovereign. The Reformed view of predestination recognizes the sovereignty of God.
God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men (Romans 9:18) —Jonathan Edwards "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." —Romans 9:18 IV. I come now to give the reasons, why God does thus exercise his sovereignty in the eternal salvation of the children of men. 1. It is agreeable to God's design in the creation of the universe to exercise every attribute, and thus to manifest the glory of each of them. God's design in the creation was to glorify himself, or to make a discovery of the essential glory of his nature. It was fit that infinite glory should shine forth; and it was God's original design to make a manifestation of his glory, as it is. Not that it was his design to manifest all his glory to the apprehension of creatures; for it is impossible that the minds of creatures should comprehend it. But it was his design to make a true manifestation of his glory, such as should represent every attribute. If God glorified one attribute, and not another, such manifestation of his glory would be defective; and the representation would not be complete. If all God's attributes are not manifested, the glory of none of them is manifested as it is: for the divine attributes reflect glory on one another. Thus if God's wisdom be manifested, and not his holiness, the glory of his wisdom would not be manifested as it is; for one part of the glory of the attribute of divine wisdom is, that it is a holy wisdom. So if his holiness were manifested, and not his wisdom, the glory of his holiness would not be manifested as it is; for one thing which belongs to the glory of God's holiness is, that it is a wise holiness. So it is with respect to the attributes of mercy and justice. The glory of God's mercy does not appear as it is, unless it is manifested as a just mercy, or as a mercy consistent with justice. And so with respect to God's sovereignty, it reflects glory on all his other attributes. It is part of the glory of God's mercy, that it is sovereign mercy. So all the attributes of God reflect glory on one another. The glory of one attribute cannot be manifested, as it is, without the manifestation of another. One attribute is defective without another, and therefore the manifestation will be defective. Hence it was the will of God to manifest all his attributes. The declarative glory of God in Scripture is often called God's name, because it declares his nature. But if his name does not signify his nature as it is, or does not declare any attribute, it is not a true name. The sovereignty of God is one of his attributes, and a part of his glory. The glory of God eminently appears in his absolute sovereignty over all creatures, great and small. If the glory of a prince be his power and dominion, then the glory of God is his absolute sovereignty. Herein appear God's infinite greatness and highness above all creatures. Therefore it is the will of God to manifest his sovereignty. And his sovereignty, like his other attributes, is manifested in the exercises of it. He glorifies his power in the exercise of power. He glorifies his mercy in the exercise of mercy. So he glorifies his sovereignty in the exercise of sovereignty. 2. The more excellent the creature is over whom God is sovereign, and the greater the matter in which he so appears, the more glorious is his sovereignty. The sovereignty of God in his being sovereign over men, is more glorious than in his being sovereign over the inferior creatures. And his sovereignty over angels is yet more glorious that his sovereignty over men. For the nobler the creature is, still the greater and higher doth God appear in his sovereignty over it. It is a greater honour to a man to have dominion over men, that over beasts; and a still greater honour to have dominion over princes, nobles, and kings, than over ordinary men. So the glory of God's sovereignty appears in that he is sovereign over the souls of men, who are so noble and excellent creatures. God therefore will exercise his sovereignty over them. And the further the dominion of any one extends over another, the greater will be the honour. If a man has dominion over another only in some instances, he is not therein so much exalted, as in having absolute dominion over his life, and fortune, and all he has. So God's sovereignty over men appears glorious, that it extends to every thing which concerns them. He may dispose of them with respect to all that concerns them, according to his own pleasure. His sovereignty appears glorious, that it reaches their most important affairs, even the eternal state and condition of the souls of men. Herein it appears that the sovereignty of God is without bounds or limits, in that it reaches to an affair of such infinite importance. God, therefore, as it is his design to manifest his own glory, will and does exercise his sovereignty towards men, over their souls and bodies, even in this most important matter of their eternal salvation. He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens. http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=424
I’ve been reading Wilber as he relates to developmental psychology, which he feels is intimately related to spiritual development (I differ with him on this), so this is where I’ve seen these references. I don’t recall a reference to what you’re asking and I couldn’t speak as an authority on his spiritual beliefs anyway, but here is a good starting point on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber There are indeed a lot of similarities. The difference lies in that the Holy Spirit is not of us, it is of God. We don’t take hold of it. Our main task is to get out of its way, to keep our worldly egos and pride and selfishness from getting in the way of the light that it’s trying to shine out of us, and our task is to agree with it and follow it. This may sound like a subtle difference but it’s different on a pretty fundamental level. It’s this spirit that fills the hole and answers the questions of purpose. We are in relationship with God through this Spirit, and that is really the central call of God, I believe. You may say that Buddhists do the same things and yet they don’t come from the Holy Spirit, and here we can look at things like proactive compassionate action and get into some subtler points about developmental psychology and higher stages of consciousness and what people inherently know about right and wrong (ethics and morality) at each level and where it that comes from, but to short hand that all (unless you want to get into it) I’d say that the key difference is the Spiritual relationship with God, relationship with a Spirit that is not of us but of God. That fills the hole and answers the questions we talked about earlier, and that is the key difference, IMO. And to link a comment there to “predestination heavy” as perhaps we should call it here, as Romans 1 suggests above, I believe that everybody knows at least on some level that God exists, so the potential to ender into relationship with God is there for everybody. I think “predestination heavy” is not in keeping with Christianity. This entering into relationship with God, or regeneration, is more commonly called being born again, but that term has been so misused and politicised that it can be more problematic than helpful. So regeneration is indeed a rebirth, but not a rebirth of the body. It’s a transformation of your being so profound it’s like being “born again.” It completely transforms your understanding of the world and our purpose in this life. (I guess I should note that it’s not always a big whammy for people. It can happen as a child and seem normal and natural or it can happen as a smoother realization. It’s not always like standing at ground zero for an atomic blast).
This is true, but what’s your point? How does this relate to our discussion? And again I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the commentary on Romans 9, but to bring this back on topic I don’t believe that Romans 9 addresses the issue of predestination. And again I ask, what good fruit is brought by the concept of predestination? Of what relevance is the concept of predestination to either Christians or non-Christians in this life? If it is of no possible relevance and bears no good fruit, then per Matt 7: 15-20 and Ephesians 5: 6 and 11, I think it is something we as Christians should stay clear of. I think it is not of God. It just occurred to me that if you grew up in a Calvinist church perhaps this is the first time you’ve explored this issue this way? Perhaps I’ve jumped in a little too heavy on this without becoming a bit more familiar with you. Most of us here have had spiritual discussions before so we kind of jump in a certain level of discussion, but you’re relatively new, or at least you’re new to me. I hope you don’t feel like I’m jumping on you here. We can slow it down a notch or two if you would like, and perhaps address some of the more foundational points and points we have in common to establish a common point of reference. Just say the word. I’m a thinker, but I like to think that I’m not an ogre.
What was our last discussion about? Wait check that, what was our last me finding articles of people who were saying the things I wanted to say better than I and you countering about?
How can the Holy Spirit guide us and yet not be a part of us? If it is a part of your consciousness, is it not a part of you? I personally can not come to terms with such duality. Yes rebirth, or manifestation, is a transformation (not reincarnation). It is constantly happening to our minds and bodies. We are in a constant state of change. We have the ability at the present moment to make our next manifestations positive or negative.
Well, it depends how you define “part of” I guess. Do you ever have the feeling that you’re being called to something? If so, then just crank that up and make it a daily event if not almost constant and you’ll get the idea. On good days it’s a joy and a peace that exudes the fruits of the Spirit. On bad days it’s quite a bit more muffled than that. Think of the genuinely good hearted Christian people you’ve known. There may only be a few shining examples that come to mind immediately. Do you notice a character they have in common? It’s like that. It is that, in fact, but many of us don’t manage to live it quite as well as they do. How is this different than Buddhism? I don’t know many Buddhists well, but it seems to me that there is more hope and love for individuals in Christian spirituality. Perhaps there is more compassion. Buddhism seems to be more about undirected love and tranquility, more about achieving personal meditative and transcendent states, which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t seem to have the same “love they neighbour” component. What are the differences you notice?
Grizzled, I sincerely appreciate your comments. I don't feel like you're "jumping" on me at all. Don't be afraid of intimidating me or offending me in challenging my beliefs. I'm confident that the Reformed position is correct. I'm not unfamiliar with arguments against Calvinism. I've read Chosen But Free, by Norman Geisler; Why I Am Not A Calvinist, by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell; and Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, by Dave Hunt and James White. I'm just not making my points as well as I'd like to. I ask for your patience. I'd like you to understand why I believe that Calvinism is consistent with the Bible. I still don't know where you stand, exactly. You've stated that you disagree with me, but you still haven't set forth a positive explanation of your own position regarding predestination. The doctrine of predestination is in the Bible. What is your view of predestination exactly? Can you please tell me what you think predestined means in Romans 8:29-30? And on what basis do you think God predestined those he foreknew? "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" (Acts 8:29-30).
Grizzled, The Holy Spirit is a person. Shouldn't we refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" or "him," and not "it"?
What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us Just a stranger on the bus Trying to make his way home If God had a face What would it look like? And would you want to see If seeing meant that you would have to believe In things like heaven and Jesus and the saints and all the Prophets What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us Just a stranger on the bus Trying to make his way home Just trying to make his way home Back up to Heaven all alone Nobody callin' on the phone cept for the Pope maybe in Rome God is great. yeah, yeah, yeah, Kam isss good.
Does the Reformed Church assign a gender to the Holy Spirit?! I have honestly never heard of that before. I’ll admit that I’m quite curious to hear what gender you believe the Holy Spirit to be and what the foundation for that belief is, though. And I have already addressed the Romans passage and a number of other ones too, and given you my position on predestination.
"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." —Jesus the Christ —John 14:15-17
My point is that the Reformed view of predestination recognizes the sovereignty of God. It helps the Christian to recognize the sovereignty of God. What does it mean to you that God is sovereign? Do you think it's out of his control how many people are going to go to heaven? If it's out of his control, how is he sovereign? What else is out of his control? If Christ's death only made it possible for people to be saved, could everyone have gone to hell? Could Christ have died in vain? Follow your own logic. You believe that God made it possible for everyone to accept Christ. You don't believe that God made certain that anyone would accept Christ. That means everyone could have gone to hell. Oh, well. God's plan of redemption was a nice plan, but humans just didn't cooperate. What kind of plan is that? According to the Reformed view of predestination, God decided to save certain people and he saved them.
If the Reformed view of predestination is correct, then a Christian cannot take any credit for believing in Christ. He/she believed in Christ only because God regenerated him/her. All the credit goes to God. A Calvinist thanks God not only for giving him/her the ability to believe in Christ, but also for the gift of saving faith. If a Christian believes that God gives everyone the ability to believe in Christ, then he/she can take credit for believing in Christ.
I don't think genuinely good hearted people are exclusive to any religion. And when I say "part of", I am talking about the interconnectivity of all things. The Kingdom of Heaven lies within us. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the main teachings of Jesus, and you cannot fulfill that commandment, no matter how hard you try, if you don't know who you are at the deepest level. Love your neighbor as yourself means your neighbor is yourself, and that recognition of oneness is love. -Eckhart Tolle Buddhism has always been about inner enlightenment. But to say the "love thy neighbor" element is nonexistent is nuts. Buddhism goes even deeper than that. Buddhists extend that love to all beings, including plants, animals, and even minerals. That's the difference I see.
Now, I could get into my concordance to investigate what the original pronoun was or why that one may have been used there, but this is simply silly. The Holy Spirit is … a spirit! That really shouldn’t be a tricky point. The Holy Spirit was sent to comfort us and “live in” us. It does not have a body. But I do think the fact that you get hung up on points like is very telling. So it has no relevance to this discussion then? I didn’t think so. What does free will mean to you Kate? By your comment I take it that you deny that man has any free will at all, else that would be an infringement on God’s sovereignty. Do you think a sovereign God cannot grant free will to his creation?! Clearly you and the Reformed church are the ones trying to limit the sovereignty of God Kate, not me and the rest of the Christian world. Your logic is faulty. Follow the teaching of the Bible on this, the whole Bible. God and Jesus called the disciples to be “fishers of men”. Fishermen cast nets, they drop lines, they bait hooks, the go to places where they know fish are. They know they are going to catch fish, but generally they don’t know which exact fish will be caught. If everything that was to be caught was already caught, then there would be no point in fishing. There would be nothing to catch. That is the convincing logic here. Again I say that this shows that the Reformed view on this is in contradiction to what is taught in the Bible. The logic of the Reform position is fatally flawed. If man has no free will, then the Bible is a pointless document. If God has the sovereignty to grant man choice, then the Reform position has no foundation except for a few passages in the Bible taken out of context. If God granted man free will, does this mean man can take credit for making choices? If God reaches out to us and we accept, does that mean we can take credit for out salvation? You are trying to play word games and you are ignoring the very nature of God’s relationship with his creation as described in the Bible. Does healing on the Sabbath constitute work? This was another word game played by the Pharisees. If you look past the games to the intent of what is taught in the Bible, I don’t think there is any question about what it says to this issue. Again, there would be no point to the Bible if we did not have the ability to make choices in our lives. To suggest that we could not possibly have the ability to make choices is to deny God’s sovereignty, to deny his ability to grant us free will. If you want to backtrack and say that we have free will in some areas but not others, then you have to justify that in the context of the whole Bible, not just a scant few reference to the word “predestination” that occur in different contexts. There is a reason that almost no other Christian churches take the Reform position on predestination, and that reason is that there is no convincing support for it in the Bible. It is the creation of John Calvin, not the word of God. I have a very important question for you now. Are you seeking the truth of God’s word and intent or are you seeking to justify the position of the Reform Church? Many groups and denominations have developed their own traditions and beliefs over the years and have tried to put them on par with or even ahead of the teachings of God, and many people have gone astray because they have chosen to worship their own leaders and their own doctrine ahead of God’s word. You can’t have two masters. If you are not seeking God first you are not seeking him at all. If you chose to put God first you must be prepared to honestly question the doctrines of your own church to see if they are in keeping with God’s word and intent. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God then you must put it first, ahead of the teachings of the fallible man John Calvin.
