 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
 |
Posted Feb 15, 2009; 2:23 pm |
|
To Iquestion: I can discuss topics with or without using scripture, but this is an MB forum, and a foundational and official belief of MBs is that the Bible is God's inspired word and is authoritative. So you will likely find those who post here tend to quote scripture in order to let the reader know where they get the source of their assertions or arguments. It kind of answers the sometimes unspoken question, "Oh yeah? Says who?"
I would also like to comment on Neto saying "Jesus refused to do signs and wonders to incite belief." Actually, I think the gospels show that Jesus precisely DID perform signs and wonders in order to incite belief in him as the Messiah and to demonstrate that the kingdom of God was present. But I agree that he refused to perform them on command for those whom he knew would not believe anyway, like those who wanted to kill him for doing a good and miraculous deed on the Sabbath. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 15, 2009; 3:08 pm |
|
Iquestion posted - | Quote: | | Does prayer help? I'm interested in what others on this site believe themselves... Do you truly believe that you are better off, either spiritually, mentally, health wise, etc etc by praying?? Yes, no, or not sure. |
As WCFOM noted, we get busy with other things and pop in and out on this forum. Looks like you sparked some good activity on this thread.
First, I would like to clarify why I asked if your thoughts had a scripture base. This was not to suggest that if you didn't have one that your views were suspect. Rather, as Neto mentioned, I, too, highly regard the scriptures as our main source and basis for what we believe, so any posts supported by scripture really get my attention. And, yes, I too have experienced and have myself thrown around scriptures  ,sometimes out of context, to support certain ideas.
Getting back to 'does prayer help?' - Jesus not only demonstrated that prayer was a must in His life but He also taught his disciples to pray. Although there is what is called 'common grace' where the 'rain falls on the just and the unjust', yet Jesus says for us to pray for our daily bread. To me, the importance of my praying for my daily bread is not that I expect God to prefer me over others in where the rain falls to provide my bread but rather that I am recognizing that God is my provider and without the rain, I cannot provide for myself. I see much of prayer as getting my thoughts and attitudes in line with what God is doing in my life and in the world.
Scripture reveals God's will and purposes and when it abides in our hearts, scripture says we can ask what we will and it will be done. I think it is important to affirm what God's will is through prayer. For instance, we are to pray God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Would this happen if I didn't pray this ? I believe what is intended here is that I surrender my will to God's will so that His purpose may be fulfilled in my life without resistance. I also am praying in faith believing that someday His will once again will reign on this earth as it did in the beginning.
Scripture also says to pray always so I think we are intended to carry on a conversation and relationship with God at any place and any time. Experience wise I tend to not pray enough as I am quite independent in nature. Yet I do believe and have experienced what I believe are answers to my prayers for health, mental, spiritual, etc. concerns.
You also posted - | Quote: | | there is no difference in what we receive in terms of blessings as compared to non Christians |
It may appear this way in general if we look at these from our perspective. However, there are spiritual blessings that only believers receive and many, perhaps most of these, have conditions attached to them. For instance, there is a joy and a peace that surpasses anything a non-believer can be blessed with.
Anyway, I think many of us have questions regarding prayer. You are not alone. I have read various books on the subject and still have questions. But we don't have relationships without communicating and prayer is one way God uses to communicate with us. I'm glad to see that lately more emphasis is being placed on the listening aspect as it seems that prayer has often been offered as one way only. We must take the time to listen and thats another interesting topic with questions. |
|
|
|
| Iquestion Member Joined Jan 29, 2009 34 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 16, 2009; 12:22 pm |
|
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | Iquestion,
like Forrest Gump said, __it happens. From our perspective things appear quite random. perhaps you could post a bit more about what you are questioning - specially if I have totally misunderstood you.  |
There have been some interesting responses in this section, and I do appreciate them very much. I agree with the person who wrote that it helps him/her to keep in touch with God. With that I do wholeheartedly agree, it does make a daily "connection".
In response to the above quote (if I've used this thing right, lol), the point I've been attempting to make is that prayer in itself for the things we pray for (including our daily bread) is merely a redistribution of God's blessings within the Christian community. Why I say this is for the following reasons:
1. We know or believe that God wants us to come to Him through faith. Apparently no arguments here.
2. In order to know God through faith, it is just that... faith vs seeing is believing.
3. It rains upon the fields of the just and the unjust... meaning of course that Christians aren't going to be given a better life than others on this earth (health, material possessions, etc), which makes sense, because otherwise people would automatically choose Christianity for a better life on this earth, and God's existence could be established scientifially which goes against the idea of believing through faith.
4. Therefore, when we want Divine intervention into our lives, suppose we as a church pray for a member who has a disease for healing this person, and should God decide to say "sure I'll give in to this request", then the above reasoning suggests that in order to keep belief related to faith alone, God would have to pull back on a prayer request elsewhere within the Christian community in order to make belief faith centered alone, and to make #3 above apply.
Based on my logic, I do feel somewhat selfish at times when I pray for requests above and beyond "our daily bread", wanting to have some "extras" for myself ( not necessarily materialistic) because I'm thinking that if I receive what I ask for, then matters must be equalized at another Christian's expense.
More thoughts on this please! |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 16, 2009; 1:48 pm |
|
I think I follow your logic but I believe that God gives and withholds not on a basis of keeping things balanced within the Christian community but rather in accordance with what He deems best. We are told in scripture that sometimes we don't have just because we don't ask. We are also told we can ask amiss (something not in God's will, often for our own wants). He even says that sometimes He doesn't even hear our prayers under certain conditions.
I don't think God ever pulls back on a prayer request that is asked according to His will. He tells us also to come boldly to the throne of grace and make our petitions known. Don't you think He would have told us to be careful not to ask for something trivial that He might have to offset with something serious on another believer's behalf ? |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Feb 16, 2009; 4:30 pm |
|
Iquestion
Some quick thoughts.
Your numbers 1 +2 – we have reasons for our faith, it’s not Archie Bunker, quoting Sam Clement saying ‘faith is believing in something you know isn’t true.’ We’ve had lots of discussion about this subject on the MB Forum.
Your number 3 – have u heard of ‘rice’ Christians – the locals who came to faith so they could get stuff from the missionaries? But I don’t believe the reason Christians don’t get an easier ride is because God doesn’t want to provide scientific proof for his existence.
Your number 4 – this sounds all too mechanical to me. I don’t think God sets things up the way you are describing. Perhaps looking at things from a very broad perspective will help. We exist within a fallen universe – everything is marred. I like what NT Wright has been teaching me (via his books) that Jesus followers are part of the New Creation. Here and now – we can try, in small little ways, in anticipation of when the New Creation is fully realized, to begin to set things right (anyway I digress).
Back to the mystery of God and the universe.
Two events involving airplanes have recently been in the news. One event ends with a spectacular landing and everyone lives. Another event ends in complete tragedy. Sometimes I think Christians talk a little simplistically about events like this. People and families associated with the first example praise God. What can we do or say to the families of the second tragedy? |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| answer to westcoast frame of mind re being a "Biblicist |
Posted Feb 17, 2009; 9:06 pm |
|
[quote="westcoast frame of mind”]just out of curiousity - would you mind explaining a bit more about what you mean by being a 'biblicist'[/quote]
I finally have a few free minutes to answer your question – Sorry for the delay!
I first wrote out a bit of how I meant it, then I looked a bit at some definitions on-line. I can understand now why you ask! It is used in many ways, and in both derogatory and in, shall we say, “closed group” attitudes. One site defined a Biblicist as a fundamentalist, or an evangelical. Another equated it with premil, pre-trib, and imminent return of Christ beliefs. While I generally hold to a premil position, I am neither pre-trib, nor do I believe in the imminent return of Christ. Nor am I a fundamentalist, and shy away from claiming to be an evangelical. WikiAnswers.com came closer to the way I meant it:
“A person who seeks to mold their personal life after precepts and principles taught by the Bible in its entirety without attempting to mold these Biblical principles and precepts to fit previous denominational and doctrinal teachings.”
With all that out of the way, I’ll tell you what I had written.
I have a high view of scripture, that it is our authority for ALL matters of faith and practice. I am NOT a systematic theologist – I disapprove of attempts to add in the missing pieces. (For instance, how to rectify freewill and predestination. When people ask me if I am Calvinist or Arminian, I say Neither, and both. Arminius was a Calvinist – this is their dispute, not mine. They got there by trying to explain what God in his wisdom did not see fit to fully explain to us in Scripture.) I believe in practicing what is commanded in scripture. (Such as: men should have short hair. Women should have uncut hair. We should practice foot-washing, and the holy kiss. There are instructions in the Scripture pertaining to authority in the assembly of believers, and we should follow them.) I believe in a literal 6 day creation, and literal miracles (God may use “natural events”, but he CONTROLS them and actively brings about these “natural events” for his purposes.)
I know that some of these may be “hot buttons” for some people, and I know that I probably will not have the time to answer everyone’s objections or questions. I used to hold much more liberal viewpoints on most of these things – for instance, I had a huge afro when I was in college, being somewhat of a Jesus Freak. I struggled for a long time with whether this was wrong, and I finally realized that while my motive was right (wanting to see a world in which racial prejudice would truly be a thing of the past), I realize now that my method was wrong. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| response to Iquestion |
Posted Feb 17, 2009; 9:08 pm |
|
[quote="Iquestion”] … I must disagree with you on the part of miracles. The first four books of the New Testament are completely filled with miracles, including the greatest one... the resurrection. Do you really think the disciples would have put themselves in harm's way had they not seen actual signs?[/quote]
I think that I did not explain myself very well. I agree that the disciples needed to see miraculous works in order to grow into faith. And that the Gospel accounts are full of miracles. But Jesus responded to their “OK, now I believe because I see what you can do” by pronouncing a blessing on those who believe without seeing. He wanted to see their faith grow, which the writer to the Hebrews calls the “substance of things not seen”.
[quote="Iquestion”]As for the reason why the wonderful young man was taken from your friends, the answer is simple. It happened. I can get a disease and die, I can get in a car accident and die. If young people were immune to death, this in itself would be one of these "signs" that God exists, because people could throw their children off of cliffs and they would still be alive. There does not have to be a reason a person dies on this earth. The laws of physics and probability apply. If God decides that Christians should die later, here we go again with exactly what I've been saying all along.... there is no difference in what we receive in terms of blessings as compared to non Christians. [/quote]
At first I understood what you say here as though it were from a belief in fate, but I think it is actually more of an opposite to fate? Someone who believes in simple fate would say that what happened was predetermined, that nothing could have been varied to avoid that end result. But I think you might be representing a view which takes events like that as simple “accidents”. I personally do not believe in accidents. I could go into great length here, but it would probably not be appropriate for this forum setting. Briefly put, I believe that God has ultimate control. I do not accept the idea that God simply set into motion natural law, and then never, or seldom, intervenes. (I am not suggesting that I think you take that position.) The book of Job gives us a glimpse behind the scenes in what we might call accidents. Someone is in control. If God would abdicate that role, then Satan is ready to take over. If I might, I’d like to give a human example. Let’s suppose that I am afraid of heights, but on a trip up into the mountains I really want to get the full benefit of a view from the edge of a high cliff, so I tie a rope around my waist, and the other end to a post set in solid rock some distance from the edge, then stand at the very edge of the precipice with my friend, who, being totally at ease with heights, laughs at my precautions. Then while we are standing there looking, I realize that the area we are standing on is breaking off - neither of us has the time to jump back to solid ground, but I have the opportunity to grab him, thus saving him from plunging to his death. It is an accident. A natural occurrence. Rocks break off of cliffs all the time. If I, having within my power the ability to save him, do not, am I not responsible for his resulting death? God has the power to save us from “accidental” death. He has saved me in some instances I could cite, mostly situations where I did something stupid, which should have resulted in my death. But sometimes he chooses not to intervene. So he is responsible. (I don’t mean that it was his fault, just that he had the ability to prevent it, and did not.) But I know that God is loving, so I am not angry with him. Rather, I believe that he has some purpose in it, perhaps (probably?) a purpose I will never know. I don’t insist on knowing, but my heart still cries out “Why?” I may never know why the young man to whom I referred died in that auto crash, but I firmly believe that it was no “accident” from God’s point of view. God is in control.
[quote="Iquestion”]I'm just a bit confused as to the remark you made about Sunday school.... are you implying that issues/questions such as the one I'm debating are questions children ask and aren't meant to be discussed, and that only the text message matters? Where does one then go with questions? Can't very well stand up during the sermon and say "hey pastor...." Laughing[/quote]
No, what I meant to say is that I agree with you that we too easily give pat answers to sincere questions which demand more than a “children’s Sunday School” answer. If all we talk about in SS is the same stuff we talked about when in 5th grade, then why do it at all? I don’t mean to infer that children do not ask sincere questions, or that they do not deserve well-thought-out answers, but that they do not need, or expect, the depth of response that an adult wants when faced with a question like “Why do my prayers fall on seemingly deaf ears when my wife and I plead with God for another child?” (Not me, but someone in my class recently.) As you said, we can respond to a question like that with all sorts of Bible verse quotes that will not began to really answer the question. Pat answer. “Let’s move on, avoid the embarrassing silence.” It happens too much. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Feb 17, 2009; 9:09 pm |
|
| Sorry, I see I did something wrong with the quotes..... |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Feb 17, 2009; 9:18 pm |
|
| lornewel wrote: | | I would also like to comment on Neto saying "Jesus refused to do signs and wonders to incite belief." Actually, I think the gospels show that Jesus precisely DID perform signs and wonders in order to incite belief in him as the Messiah and to demonstrate that the kingdom of God was present. But I agree that he refused to perform them on command for those whom he knew would not believe anyway, like those who wanted to kill him for doing a good and miraculous deed on the Sabbath. |
I did not state that very well. What I meant was that he would not do miracles "on demand" just in order to try to convince a skeptic to believe in him. I think he primarily did miracles because of his compassion for people. But yes, he also used these works to show who he was. Maybe you will still disagree with this, but I did anyways state it rather badly before.... |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Neto, |
Posted Feb 17, 2009; 11:17 pm |
|
Thanks for your reply – now I have an image of you as a Jesus Freak sporting an afro. That got me thinking back to my teens (way back in the day) of hanging around with the Jesus People. It was a formational time in my life. I went away for a summer, came back to reconnect, and the Jesus People had been taken over by a cult called ‘the Children of God.’ I spoke to some Jesus People (ex-hippy types) who had now been turned into Children of God. That was when I decided that I was always going to think for myself.
Some of your reply sounds like you could also be called a literalist – not that there is anything wrong with that (Jerry Seinfeld). By the way, I have a weird sense of humour. I certainly don’t have any questions or objections – just the ‘literalist’ observation.
Have you given any thought to the lenses with which you approach Scripture? I’m told we all have them – even those who say like the Wikianswer that they attempt to only allow the biblical materials to shape their thinking.
Regards from the Westcoast
Are you hooked up with a Mennonite Brethren congregation over in Ohio? |
|
|
|
| Iquestion Member Joined Jan 29, 2009 34 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 18, 2009; 10:00 am |
|
Reading forum postings certainly brings about different points of view. This to me is both healthy and necesary, in that there are countless ways in which to interpret scripture and Christianity. To Neto, you've explained your position quite well, it's appreciated! I've nothing new to add on this topic at the moment but will begin a new thread very soon, see you all there!  |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| westcoast frame of mind, |
Posted Feb 19, 2009; 7:09 am |
|
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | | Thanks for your reply – now I have an image of you as a Jesus Freak sporting an afro. That got me thinking back to my teens (way back in the day) of hanging around with the Jesus People. It was a formational time in my life. I went away for a summer, came back to reconnect, and the Jesus People had been taken over by a cult called ‘the Children of God.’ I spoke to some Jesus People (ex-hippy types) who had now been turned into Children of God. That was when I decided that I was always going to think for myself. |
Yes, over the years I was approached by various "cults", like Jesus Only, who asked me in whose name I had been baptized (It had to be in Jesus' name only), by Moonies, by The Local Church (who varied greatly, some congregations were probably not cultish, while one - the person who approached me was a former fellow student at a Bible Institute where I had attended - believed that only the Holy Spirit is God, as both Jesus and the Father possess bodies - "Jesus sits at the right hand of God, the arm of God, etc"). A close friend of mine ran away from home - Mormons - at 15, was a Moonie lecturer until they abandoned her in a hospital (malnutrition due to excessive fasting), then later fell in with the Children of God, but later went through a rescue house, and finally found a group who were solid, and also willing to give her the support she needed as a genuine family of faith. Like you, I responded by a lot of personal study, determining my own viewpoints, to which I tend to hold unrelentingly, at times too much so.
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | | Some of your reply sounds like you could also be called a literalist – not that there is anything wrong with that (Jerry Seinfeld). By the way, I have a weird sense of humour. I certainly don’t have any questions or objections – just the ‘literalist’ observation. |
I would not deny this, nor do I take offense. I think that this can be both a guard against false doctrine, and a danger. Much of the Jesus People movement I would characterize as being "literalist". A small group I was involved with as a sort of "pastor" (people from the place where I worked, mostly mild drug users (pot), at least one guy who had seen some rough stuff in Nam, etc) were adamant about using the KJV, and sometimes got really stuck on a misinterpretation based on that translation. Like that Jesus rose straight up into the air after his baptism. (Mark says something like "and straightway cameth he up out of the water".) (That's one reason why I strongly disapprove of the continued use of the KJV.) I lost my opportunity with them because I tried to integrate them into the church (MB) where I was a member. I was trying to stay under the leadership of my own pastor. They wanted me to baptize them, but in the MB church. My pastor would not OK this, and they went their own way, one couple later divorced, etc. The problem with that type of literalism is the lack of Biblical background and understanding. Not that I claim total understanding, either. I am constantly dealing with what you called (below) "the lenses with which you approach Scripture".
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | | Have you given any thought to the lenses with which you approach Scripture? I’m told we all have them – even those who say like the Wikianswer that they attempt to only allow the biblical materials to shape their thinking. |
Yes, very much so. I grew up in an MB church in the lower great plains, and the teaching I received there was basically dispensationalist, and strongly pre-trib, etc. However, the pastor there during my Jr High & HS years was not only a dispensationalist, but also spoke in tongues. But not publicly - I only knew of it after I was expelled from the Bible Institute where I started college for my own involvement in "charismatics". The way I grew up, many of the brethren in the congregation to which we belong now would be characterized as "liberals" because they are either open to, or espouse, amillenialism. This is where it is most difficult for me to lay aside those "lenses" - to look at the Scripture without the preconceptions which millenialism suggests.
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | Regards from the Westcoast
Are you hooked up with a Mennonite Brethren congregation over in Ohio? |
No. I don't think there are MB churches in Ohio at all, unless some of the Russian Baptist (immigrant) congregations are still associated with the MB's - there was one in Columbus. I haven't attended at an MB church since I moved here in 83, though I left my membership there during the first 10 years my wife and I were on the mission field. (Went to Brazil in 85) In 95 we both applied for membership in the conservative Mennonite congregation where we now belong, and we were received as members the following year. (New members are first accepted as 'Proving Members" before being accepted as full members, taking part in communion, etc. - Yes, we practice "closed communion".) One of the sisters in our congregation is from Canadian MB background, and a single lady from the Old Colony Mennonites (in Texas) attended for a time, though she did not join. When I asked to be released from the MB church to join here, the then pastor cautioned me about "legalism". That is the concept that many MB's have of our approach to faith here. But we follow rules and guidelines because we are saved, not in order to gain salvation.
One more comment about the whole afro deal. I grew up in the American South. The "Civil War" was called "The War between the States", and the North was presented as the aggressor. Attending public school, I absorbed prejudice. I went to Bible Institute in the North, and for the first time in my life came into contact with American Blacks. (All of the Negro families in our small town were either killed or driven out in the 20's during race riots - the Whites were doing the rioting - after a false accusation by a White woman against a Negro man who tried to steady her when she stumbled entering an elevator in the large city nearest our community. A large part of the Negro section of that city was burned before it was over, and many people were killed.) All of them at school that year were on the same dorm hall as I, and 2 became very close friends of mine. Some years later I was in a mission training school where a young Black woman was also attending. A group of us were talking one day, and one of the guys (a White) asked her what she preferred to be called: "Black", or "African-American". She answered with her name - that's what she wanted to be called. That portrays the vision I had, the world I was trying to bring in. You might say "I had a Dream" - a dream that we could accomplish a world, at least within the Church - where people would be known for who they are, not by their "race". |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Feb 19, 2009; 8:14 pm |
|
Thanks for your reply Neto - much appreciated. Great to hear something about your journey.
I was especially was interested to read about your desire for integration. reminded me of Gal 3.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [NASB].
Lately i've been reading the New Testament with a new appreciation for what a big deal integrating Jew/Gentile into the New Creation really was. And it seems the task is still not complete - not between races, classes of people and genders. Personally, I look forward to the day woman can freely express their giftedness in all areas of the congreation. But that is another big topic isn't it. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Feb 20, 2009; 7:22 am |
|
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | I was especially was interested to read about your desire for integration. reminded me of Gal 3.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [NASB].
Lately i've been reading the New Testament with a new appreciation for what a big deal integrating Jew/Gentile into the New Creation really was. |
Yes. I commented recently to my SS class about how the Gentile "Church" has taken over the identity of the congregation of God. They didn't really agree - saying that the Jews had lost their place as a special people in the economy of God. This is a view that is all too common in the conservative Mennonite circles, that God's covenant with the Jews was terminated by their rejection of their Messiah. I feel strongly that it was the Gentiles who were "grafted in", as Paul says. Now the tables are turned, and Jews must be grafted into the "church" as foreigners. I don't think it's right. I don't think we as non-Jewish people (at least culturally - I personally believe many of our ancestors were Sephardic Jews) appreciate our acceptance into the family of God. I tend to use the words "people of God", or "congregation of God" instead of "church", partially for this reason. People have played with word etymology and define 'church' as 'called-out ones'. It was a word in common usage during NT times with an understood meaning of something like 'assembly'. The word 'congregation' maintains continuity with the OT. I hope I haven't opened another can of worms here.
As concerns the latter part of your last response, regarding women in the ministry - I won't go there. Sometimes I have to just keep my mouth shut. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| to speak or not to speak |
Posted Feb 21, 2009; 3:40 pm |
|
Hi Neto - I appreciated reading your story about how you came to be where you are today. I was wondering how your vision of being known by our name intersects with your community's views about women in ministry.
I know you preferred not to speak about this, and I want to show respect to both you and the integrity of your Mennonite community, but do you think your vision for the people of God could ever become large enough to include a woman as a leader within the people of God? 
Recently, I have become intensely aware of the conflict around women in leadership within the MB community. It seems the 'inconclusive' results at the convention in Calgary have forced some unexpected battles to occur in the arenas where multiple points of view are invited to share in ministry - i.e. ministries at a collective, provincial or Canadian level. It seems that those who are less open to women assuming a leadership role can become quite defensive and destructive in their tactics to exclude women from certain positions. I wonder if this should not be addressed more directly.
For a healthy people of God, it may be necessary to discuss who gets to | Quote: | | speak or not to speak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
