Follow the leader - or Simon says.

[MoreCoffee]

Let’s assume, for this discussion, that free will is 100% correct and there is no predestination. Will this actually impact when and how and why you share the good news with those in need that God sends into your life. Now let’s assume that the elect are all 100% predestined. Will that change when and how and why you share the good news with those that God brings into your life? Whichever point is correct, the Great Comission stands unchanged (and perfectly clear). The commandment about loving our neighbor stands clear and unchanged. The call to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within us stands clear and unchanged. Free will vs predestination is an argument that is vital to theologians, and largely irrelevant to walking in the good deeds which the Father has prepared in advance for us.

Are you one iota more or less saved by the blood of Christ shed on the cross if transsubstantiation is true rather than transsubstitution? Am I less saved believing in memorial symbolism? Is THAT really what limits the ability of God to transform a person’s life ... a poor understanding of the mystery of the body and blood of Christ?

How about this:
John 3:16-21 NASB
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Is this ambiguous or confusing?

Like I said before. If the matters you've raised are all clearly expressed in holy scripture in direct and clear language then why are the matters still debated between people who claim that their teaching is taken either directly from holy scripture or can be arrived at by good and necessary consequence from what is directly stated in holy scripture. The truth is that almost no matter mentioned by you in your post is not debated between Protestants claiming to adhere to sola scriptura.

The question posed in this thread is about how one relates to one's teachers in the faith - is it like "follow the leader" where the emphasis is on the example set by leaders or is it like "Simon says" where emphasis is on the words spoken and written by leaders. Holy scripture can be treated as a leader for the purposes of this discussion but holy scripture was not foremost in my thinking when I raised the topic. Similarly denominational statements of faith, catechisms, confessions of faith, and so on may also be treated as leaders for the purposes of this discussion but none of them was foremost in my thinking as I raised the topic.

 

[atpollard]

Like I said before. If the matters you've raised are all clearly expressed in holy scripture in direct and clear language then why are the matters still debated between people who claim that their teaching is taken either directly from holy scripture or can be arrived at by good and necessary consequence from what is directly stated in holy scripture. The truth is that almost no matter mentioned by you in your post is not debated between Protestants claiming to adhere to sola scriptura.

The question posed in this thread is about how one relates to one's teachers in the faith - is it like "follow the leader" where the emphasis is on the example set by leaders or is it like "Simon says" where emphasis is on the words spoken and written by leaders. Holy scripture can be treated as a leader for the purposes of this discussion but holy scripture was not foremost in my thinking when I raised the topic. Similarly denominational statements of faith, catechisms, confessions of faith, and so on may also be treated as leaders for the purposes of this discussion but none of them was foremost in my thinking as I raised the topic.

You seem unable to differentiate between ESSENTIALS and NON-ESSENTIALS. The ESSENTIALS are unambiguous and the ambiguous are NON-ESSENTIALS.

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” - motto of the Moravian Church

 

[MoreCoffee]

You seem unable to differentiate between ESSENTIALS and NON-ESSENTIALS. The ESSENTIALS are unambiguous and the ambiguous are NON-ESSENTIALS.

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” - motto of the Moravian Church

The distinction between what is "essential" and what isn't appears to be a distinctly Protestant preoccupation.

 

[Josiah]

The distinction between what is "essential" and what isn't appears to be a distinctly Protestant preoccupation.

Wrong.


Those Protestants with this concept get it 100% from the Roman Catholic denomination. In the RCC, there is an official LIST and RANK of how important teachings are - many levels of distinction between "essential" at one end and "non-essential" at the other. In the RC denomination, de fide dogma is what is essential. Some Protestants follow the example of the RCC rather than this list of ranks usually just have two categories.

I might add that historically, this distinction you rebuke was embraced. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds were originally meant to be statements of what is "essential." The 7 Ecumenical Councils often would embrace some things as "essential." I gues you pretty radically disagree with your denomination on this point (which is okay with me; I disagree with your denomination here and there too).



- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

The distinction between what is "essential" and what isn't appears to be a distinctly Protestant preoccupation.

Back in post #15 atpollard makes the point that the things that tend to impact daily life tend to be less subjective. When that was said I thought of practical day to day issues such as don't lie, don't murder, love others, love God, don't be jealous of others. It seems like to me that these issues are the ones that are more practical and impacting on daily life than the bigger theological issues.
As far as if I follow my pastors example. I rarely if ever see him, so I have no idea what he is doing most of the week. He could be running a mafia drug cartel for all i know. As far as his messages, I carefully listen to them and try to apply it to my daily life, but some messages are easier to do than then others. There are also others who teach in the church such as the Sunday School teacher who may bring up issues that the Holy Spirit wants me to consider.

 

[Pedrito]

As suggested in Post #3:

Most requests should be followed by prayer...wouldn't you agree?

With respect to a congregational matter raised by the leadership (the pastor or the church council, etc.)...

The congregation prays.

One group of congregants believes that God has told them that the Pastor (priest, minister, council...) should be obeyed.

Another group of congregants believes that God has told them that the Pastor (priest, minister, council...) should not be obeyed.

To whom (to the individuals in which group) was God really speaking?

Majority rules?

 

[atpollard]

As suggested in Post #3:


With respect to a congregational matter raised by the leadership (the pastor or the church council, etc.)...

The congregation prays.

One group of congregants believes that God has told them that the Pastor (priest, minister, council...) should be obeyed.

Another group of congregants believes that God has told them that the Pastor (priest, minister, council...) should not be obeyed.

To whom (to the individuals in which group) was God really speaking?

Majority rules?

Perhaps God spoke to both.

Romans 14:1-6 NKJV
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps God spoke to both.

Perhaps God didn't speak to either.

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps God didn't speak to either.

Do you have a verse that teaches that the prayers of the saints for wisdom go unanswered by God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you have a verse that teaches that the prayers of the saints for wisdom go unanswered by God?

Many verses - especially in the psalms - speak of silence from heaven in the face of prayers and though the thought that every prayer offered by the saints receives a discernible answer from God is comforting it is most likely wishful thinking. But in the examples given in this thread it has to be asked "are the prayers mentioned truly from "the saints"?" Nevertheless you asked for a verse and perhaps this suits the request.

James:15 If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all easily and unconditionally. 6 But ask with faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave driven and tossed on the sea by the wind. 7 Such a person should not expect anything from the Lord, since the doubter has two minds 8 and his conduct will always be insecure.​

 

[MennoSota]

Many verses - especially in the psalms - speak of silence from heaven in the face of prayers and though the thought that every prayer offered by the saints receives a discernible answer from God is comforting it is most likely wishful thinking. But in the examples given in this thread it has to be asked "are the prayers mentioned truly from "the saints"?" Nevertheless you asked for a verse and perhaps this suits the request.

James:15 If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all easily and unconditionally. 6 But ask with faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave driven and tossed on the sea by the wind. 7 Such a person should not expect anything from the Lord, since the doubter has two minds 8 and his conduct will always be insecure.​

Luke 11:9-13
[9]“And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.
[10]For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.
[11]“You fathers—if your children ask for a fish, do you give them a snake instead?
[12]Or if they ask for an egg, do you give them a scorpion? Of course not!
[13]So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.”

 

[MoreCoffee]

The passage from Luke tells of how necessary it is to be persistent in prayer and gives one explanation for why some of the prayers of the saints meet with silence. Persistence may bring a discernible answer after a time of silence. James reminds the saints that praying with a "double mind" will likely lead to silence from heaven. Two passages from the new testament. The psalms can provide more passages.

What would you categorise silence in the face of prayer as in terms of leadership? Would a pastor or elder leading a congregation be one that you'd follow when his public prayers were met with silence from heaven? Would you be going with "follow the leader" or "Simon says" in your response to such leadership?

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #26 I floated a scenario:

As suggested in Post #3:

Most requests should be followed by prayer...wouldn't you agree?

With respect to a congregational matter raised by the leadership (the pastor or the church council, etc.)...

The congregation prays.

One group of congregants believes that God has told them that the Pastor (priest, minister, council...) should be obeyed.

Another group of congregants believes that God has told them that the Pastor (priest, minister, council...) should not be obeyed.

To whom (to the individuals in which group) was God really speaking?

Majority rules?

To which [MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] replied in Post #27:

Perhaps God spoke to both.

It should be pointed out that God is not the author of confusion.

==============================================================================================
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] offered Romans 14:1-6 in support of his statement above:

Romans 14:1-6 NKJV
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

I submit to Readers that that text has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It deals with Christian maturity (or lack of it), and how a person can have a difficult time extricating himself or herself from the strong conditioning of their background, or possibly overreacting to it.

Isn’t the suggestion that God was (or is) responsible for a person’s personal foibles (or worse), whether self-imposed or not, and that a person’s immaturity (whether censurable or not) is something that God has placed in a person’s mind in response to that person’s prayer – isn’t that suggestion actually misrepresenting the Great and Wonderful God whom we are supposed to honour?

 

[Pedrito]

Post #26:

Luke 11:9-13
[9]“And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.
[10]For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.
[11]“You fathers—if your children ask for a fish, do you give them a snake instead?
[12]Or if they ask for an egg, do you give them a scorpion? Of course not!
[13]So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.”

==============================================================================================

I have found the translations "keep on asking", "keep on seeking" and "keep on knocking" (and the like), in the Holman Standard Christian Bible (first published in 2003), the World English Bible (first published in 2000, an update of the American Standard Version of 1901) and derivatives, the International Standard Version (released in 1988, published in 2011), Wuest's (published in 1961), and the New World Translation (published in its entirety in 1961, and which I obtained because MoreCoffee kept quoting from it before).

Every other translation I have looked at (the indicative majority of them, including the Roman catholic DRB and DRC translations) do not include the "keep" or "keep on" insertions. Including the original ASV of 1901.

==============================================================================================

There are three things that are open to consideration about what Jesus taught.

1. The Reader will note that all the "keep on" translations detected so far, are relatively modern. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the "keep on asking for what you want until you get it" teaching is itself a relatively modern innovation. It ties in nicely with the selfish "prosperity Gospel" which has been making inroads into Christendom for some time.

2. Verses 11-13 indicate that there is no need to ask incessantly. God is willing and waiting to answer. Any failure to receive what is asked for is explained by James in James 4:3 and John in 1 John 5:14.

3. The tense of the Greek verb appears to be the simple present ("ask" etc.), as opposed to containing any continuous component (...ing).

4. The Bible reveals that for true Christians, there is a specific limit to the number of times something may be asked for. (Who can advise us what that limit is, and how we know?)

==============================================================================================

For the above reasons, I question the reliability of the "keep on..." perspective.

But I could be mistaken.

Note: the dates documented above have been obtained from sources understood to be reliable. Apologies if any date is incorrect.

 

[atpollard]

4. The Bible reveals that for true Christians, there is a specific limit to the number of times something may be asked for. (Who can advise us what that limit is, and how we know?)

Seventy times seven?

 

[Pedrito]

Me, in Post #34:

4. The Bible reveals that for true Christians, there is a specific limit to the number of times something may be asked for. (Who can advise us what that limit is, and how we know?)

atpollard in Post #35:

Seventy times seven?

==============================================================================================

Good attempt, but not quite right. The passage referred to is Matthew 18:21-22.

Jesus presented the "until seventy times seven" in the context of forgiveness. And it was not simply a random large number as is often taught. It was a highly specific number. When the disciples heard that "until seventy times seven", their reaction would have been, "Ahah!" or "Of course!".

Why is that?

==============================================================================================

Daniel 9:2 tells us: In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

That was referring to Jeremiah 25:11-12:
11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.

And Jeremiah 29:10: For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

But why seventy?

==============================================================================================

Of the Babylonian captivity it is said in 2 Chronicles 36:20-21:
20 And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:
21 To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

And therein lies the key. God had said to Israel that if they did not stick by their covenant promise to obey His Law (Leviticus 26:32-35):
32 ... I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.
33 And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.
34 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths.
35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.

God had ordained that the land should enjoy a sabbath rest, as well as man. Every seventh year was to be that sabbath rest. The land was not to be ploughed or sown. (Leviticus 25:4)

Israel failed to observe the sabbath year (seventh year) seventy times in a row.

Until how many years did God forbear with Israel, and forgive Israel for its disobedience?

Until seventy times seven.

God set the precedent referred to by Jesus. So if you want to keep count...

 

[atpollard]

Just for the record, I was joking with seventy times seven.

My first thought was 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 with an emphasis not on “three” but rather on ‘when God answers’.
I look forward to your answer.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

I wish to assure atpollard that I had guessed that the case was as he stated in Post #37:

Just for the record, I was joking with seventy times seven.

However, I jumped at the chance (excuse) to reveal some Scriptural understanding that is not commonly taught or even realised. (Or at least it used not to be.)

So much knowledge that was glorifying to God was lost when Jewish understanding was expunged from Christendom by the politically powerful pagan consortium, especially in the fourth century.

No longer were the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-2) given attention, and false doctrines of pagan origin began to creep in, in their place.

I deem it refreshing to sometimes see elements of that God-glorifying understanding, restored.

==============================================================================================

atpollard's mentioning of 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 was actually spot on.

In Matthew 26:26-46, Jesus prays three times to His Father that He be let off the hook if there be any possible way. He understood that God's continued lack of response after the third time of asking, was the answer. He knew not to ask a fourth time.

In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 Paul pointedly says he asked God three times. (Why did he even say that?) It was after the third time that the answer was given. Paul also knew that a fourth time of asking would be inappropriate.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the maximum acceptable times to approach God on a matter, is three.

And while we can understand that the restriction pertains particularly to God's spiritual children (labelled "sons") as they walk the Earth, we also see indications of the importance of "three" (original occurrence plus two repetitions) in other areas.

For instance, in 1 Kings 17:20-22, we see Elijah beseeching God on behalf of a child who had died:
20 And he cried to the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, have You also brought evil on the widow with whom I am staying, by slaying her son?
21 And he stretched himself on the child three times, and cried to the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, please let this child's soul come to him again.
22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into him again, and he lived.

And in Acts 11:5-10, the vision in which Peter was commanded to eat unclean animals – animals which were hitherto unclean to Jews by God’s direct command – occurred three times.

Thus a three-fold occurrence carries the significance of certainty and finality.

==============================================================================================

Based on the above, I believe that my personal approach (I stress personal), should be to approach God a maximum of three times on any given matter, and to understand any perceived lack of response to be in fact the definite one. That appears to be the Scriptural precedent.

I do not presume to speak for others. But I do believe the principle deserves careful consideration.