forces of this world

[RandyPNW]

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day... 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

What are the elemental spiritual forces of this world? I believe they are angelic and human choices that take place autonomously, ie apart from the Spirit of God. Instead of walking in God's word, the spirits of this world follow their own minds, and do not consult the mind of God. These "forces of the world" are in opposition to Christ, who is to be our sole arbitor of what is right in our choices. We must always conform our attitudes to Christ's Spirit, to ensure that we act in the right spirit.

Note that when Jews came into Christianity after being under the Law of Moses, they sometimes tried to draw along with them their Jewish traditions. And I'm not saying that is always wrong. But establishing tradition as a cover for independent judgment, in opposition to Christ's Spirit, is a return to the "elemental forces of this world."

To try to observe Sabbath, to get circumcised, or to observe any tradition of the Law, as if it it critical to, or a replacement of, walking in Christ, is a threat to returning to the forces of this world, or self-autonomy. Making rules for ourselves is as bad as "doing our own thing." Adopting traditions for rules, in place of consulting Christ, is replacing Christ with rules to govern our behavior as we wish.

[Athanasius]

What's with all the comparisons with Jews and Judaism lately?

How is this any different than Christians being a little too in love with the Christian religion; or, what would be the Jewish complaint about Christian behaviour from their perspective? What you call in Judaism the 'elemental forces of this world' are, in Judaism - as in Christianity - the commands of God. It's a bit of a tricky distinction, no?

How does one reliably consult Christ, anyway? What if I confirm my attitude "to Christ's Spirit" but the conclusion I draw is drastically different from your own? Who arbitrates then? How is this theology lived out in practice given the inherent subjectivity of people?

[RandyPNW]

What's with all the comparisons with Jews and Judaism lately?

How is this any different than Christians being a little too in love with the Christian religion; or, what would be the Jewish complaint about Christian behaviour from their perspective? What you call in Judaism the 'elemental forces of this world' are, in Judaism - as in Christianity - the commands of God. It's a bit of a tricky distinction, no?

How does one reliably consult Christ, anyway? What if I confirm my attitude "to Christ's Spirit" but the conclusion I draw is drastically different from your own? Who arbitrates then? How is this theology lived out in practice given the inherent subjectivity of people?

This is not a personal "Christianity vs Jewish" thing. This is how Christianity was framed originally as a Jewish religion. Its theology was framed in contrast to the Law, with Christianity being the fulfillment of the Law. One therefore cannot avoid the comparison of Christianity with Judaism. One should not take this personally. This is a Christian site--not a Jewish site, although I have no problem with Jews weighing in and wanting to defend their faith.

Yes, doing things "in the Spirit" is subjective. But most Christians know of what I speak, and so no need to spell it out. The theology is what I'm spelling out--not the subjectivity of the experience.

Christianity is  based on a direct experience of Christ through the avenue of his Spirit. He is gone, but his Sprit is here. And so, we're stuck with having to know one spirit from another. Only those who get it right, however, will benefit. For what it's worth, the true Spirit must conform to the life of Jesus, as testified to by the apostles and by the Gospels.

[Athanasius]

Yes, doing things "in the Spirit" is subjective. But most Christians know of what I speak, and so no need to spell it out. The theology is what I'm spelling out--not the subjectivity of the experience.

Christianity is  based on a direct experience of Christ through the avenue of his Spirit. He is gone, but his Sprit is here. And so, we're stuck with having to know one spirit from another. Only those who get it right, however, will benefit. For what it's worth, the true Spirit must conform to the life of Jesus, as testified to by the apostles and by the Gospels.

"How does one reliably consult Christ, anyway? What if I [conform] my attitude "to Christ's Spirit" but the conclusion I draw is drastically different from your own? Who arbitrates then? How is this theology lived out in practice given the inherent subjectivity of people?"

The Christian world isn't nearly in 100% agreement with itself, so?

[RandyPNW]

Yes, doing things "in the Spirit" is subjective. But most Christians know of what I speak, and so no need to spell it out. The theology is what I'm spelling out--not the subjectivity of the experience.

Christianity is  based on a direct experience of Christ through the avenue of his Spirit. He is gone, but his Sprit is here. And so, we're stuck with having to know one spirit from another. Only those who get it right, however, will benefit. For what it's worth, the true Spirit must conform to the life of Jesus, as testified to by the apostles and by the Gospels.

"How does one reliably consult Christ, anyway? What if I [conform] my attitude "to Christ's Spirit" but the conclusion I draw is drastically different from your own? Who arbitrates then? How is this theology lived out in practice given the inherent subjectivity of people?"

The Christian world isn't nearly in 100% agreement with itself, so?

Don't feign ignorance, brother. If you don't want to live by Christ's Spirit, just own up to it. As a Christian you either know him or you don't.

[Athanasius]

Don't feign ignorance, brother. If you don't want to live by Christ's Spirit, just own up to it. As a Christian you either know him or you don't.

It's all well and good to espouse some theological position in theory, but how do you apply that practically? The question is legitimate, and not some... whatever you think it is, attempt to want to live by some other spirit than Christ's. But I guess it's easy to cast the accusation.

Your neighbour, who you've known to be a Christian your whole life, wakes up one morning and tells you that he's going to take his son up to the top of a mountain to sacrifice him to God because God told Him to do it (God really did, but you don't know this). How do you reconcile what your neighbour is telling you and what you'll likely hold to as true, namely, that God does not demand child sacrifice and so of course this isn't God speaking to your neighbour?

Or would you say that after a brief consultation with the Spirit, the Spirit will assuage your concerns and you'll be in 100% support of your neighbour. In fact, you'll even lend him your best hunting knife. (And thus duck the reality of the hypothetical.)

How do you know when you've consulted the 'mind of God'? How do you know that a choice has or hasn't been undertaken 'in the spirit of Christ'? The theology isn't difficult to grasp insofar as its notions are concerned, but the reality isn't. How many steps is it before these ideas become 'religious tradition' or similar? If I disagree with you or you disagree with me, and we both claim the 'mind' and 'spirit' of Christ, then which one of us has 'gotten it right', if either? What's the dispute resolution process? Do we appeal to consensus, but then, who is to say the consensus has gotten it right?

The aim is obvious but it's not like every prayer, thought, concern, etc., is answered by God explicitly. Christians aren't in full theological agreement -- there's plenty of disagreement. Obviously, that's possible, and obviously, these Christians are pursuing the 'mind' and 'spirit' of Christ, so?

I'm assuming what you're saying is true, by the way. I'm not disagreeing with what you're proposing; I'm asking how your proposal plays out in day to day life.

[RandyPNW]

Don't feign ignorance, brother. If you don't want to live by Christ's Spirit, just own up to it. As a Christian you either know him or you don't.

It's all well and good to espouse some theological position in theory, but how do you apply that practically? The question is legitimate, and not some... whatever you think it is, attempt to want to live by some other spirit than Christ's. But I guess it's easy to cast the accusation.

Your neighbour, who you've known to be a Christian your whole life, wakes up one morning and tells you that he's going to take his son up to the top of a mountain to sacrifice him to God because God told Him to do it (God really did, but you don't know this). How do you reconcile what your neighbour is telling you and what you'll likely hold to as true, namely, that God does not demand child sacrifice and so of course this isn't God speaking to your neighbour?

Or would you say that after a brief consultation with the Spirit, the Spirit will assuage your concerns and you'll be in 100% support of your neighbour. In fact, you'll even lend him your best hunting knife. (And thus duck the reality of the hypothetical.)

How do you know when you've consulted the 'mind of God'? How do you know that a choice has or hasn't been undertaken 'in the spirit of Christ'? The theology isn't difficult to grasp insofar as its notions are concerned, but the reality isn't. How many steps is it before these ideas become 'religious tradition' or similar? If I disagree with you or you disagree with me, and we both claim the 'mind' and 'spirit' of Christ, then which one of us has 'gotten it right', if either? What's the dispute resolution process? Do we appeal to consensus, but then, who is to say the consensus has gotten it right?

The aim is obvious but it's not like every prayer, thought, concern, etc., is answered by God explicitly. Christians aren't in full theological agreement -- there's plenty of disagreement. Obviously, that's possible, and obviously, these Christians are pursuing the 'mind' and 'spirit' of Christ, so?

I'm assuming what you're saying is true, by the way. I'm not disagreeing with what you're proposing; I'm asking how your proposal plays out in day to day life.

It's really a good subject, brother. I had thought you were just sort of arguing for the sake of arguing. Kierkegaard's dilemma was, How can we explain Faith? When Abraham claimed God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaac, how can we know God really told him to do so? It's contrary to everything we've ever heard about God, and it seems pure insanity to just let it go, trusting in Abraham.

I think there's something to Kierkegaard's resolution of the problem, that faith transcends knowledge, but not entirely so. I think there's way too much information available to just dismiss it altogether in the name of "irrational faith!"

It's more than just "we should trust Abraham--he has a good and solid record of being right, of having good character." Some of it is situational--nobody was in a position to stop Abraham, regardless--it's not like Abraham was insisting on sacrificing his son in the city or before a court.

But it does illustrate the fact that relationship with God is transcendent, and not to be completely explained in a strictly humanistic way. A transcendent relationship with God has to be explained somewhat metaphorically.

So I think some of this has to have a metaphorical design to it, and some of it is driven by consistency of character of the person claiming the revelation. But the example you cite is probably the most difficult in Scriptures that I can think of.

Another might be the claim of Moses that God wanted Israel to conquer and to utterly destroy all of the Canaanite nations in Canaan. How does that fit in with our notion of a "loving God," who is impartial and unbigoted?

How does a genocidal God fly in our modern thinking? It really doesn't, does it? And yet we believe it because we think perhaps there's something lacking in our modern, rationalist world that doesn't fully put into the equation the reality of a transcendent God, who has every right to make major judgments on this level.

I would just say this. Christians have a common experience of God, and the deeper one goes in making God the source of his life, the more detailed his understanding of God seems to be. Some of the complexities and some of the problems seem to get ironed out.

If Judaism had lost its way in a particular generation, as Christ claimed, and if the trajectory of Jewish religion has continued down that path in error, then the Jewish concept of God, though real, is tainted and not entirely trustworthy.

On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then Christians may or may not truly perceive God the way He is, depending on their level of commitment. Overall, I'd say the evidence is on the side of Christianity, and on the side of Jesus, when he said Israel in his time was utterly fake and sinful and about to be destroyed. It did happen.

The "forces of this world" are what happens when divine revelation is left outside of the world. All the religious works that the Jews may do will have no benefit if God is not part of what they do--the "forces of the world" are beyond redemption.

If anybody wants redemption, it will not be a matter of religious works alone. They must be coupled with divine revelation and with relationship with God Himself, because He is the source of all virtue. We must play by His rules, or we remain outside of His orbit, and continue to be the "forces of this world," beyond redemption.

[Athanasius]

It's really a good subject, brother. I had thought you were just sort of arguing for the sake of arguing.

No... why would I do that?

Kierkegaard's dilemma was, How can we explain Faith? When Abraham claimed God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaac, how can we know God really told him to do so? It's contrary to everything we've ever heard about God, and it seems pure insanity to just let it go, trusting in Abraham.

I think there's something to Kierkegaard's resolution of the problem, that faith transcends knowledge, but not entirely so. I think there's way too much information available to just dismiss it altogether in the name of "irrational faith!"

It's more than just "we should trust Abraham--he has a good and solid record of being right, of having good character." Some of it is situational--nobody was in a position to stop Abraham, regardless--it's not like Abraham was insisting on sacrificing his son in the city or before a court.

But it does illustrate the fact that relationship with God is transcendent, and not to be completely explained in a strictly humanistic way. A transcendent relationship with God has to be explained somewhat metaphorically.

So I think some of this has to have a metaphorical design to it, and some of it is driven by consistency of character of the person claiming the revelation. But the example you cite is probably the most difficult in Scriptures that I can think of.

If Abraham required a teleological suspension of the ethical to resolve the anxiety of being asked by God - thus duty-bound - to sacrifice one's only child then yes, that does seem difficult. But what you've written doesn't get to my question. Would you trust Abraham, or would you consider him a murderous madman? If you trust Abraham then do you take that on faith, but how? I think I'm asking something of a Kierkegaardian question, now that you bring him up. Faith isn't easy like the 19th century Danes thought. It's almost impossible, and given how difficult it is, how can you know that you've gotten it right, in your words?

I don't think anyone would have believed Abraham had he tried to tell someone else. But therein lies the tension with this idea of 'consulting the mind of God' for yourself, and trusting another person to do the same. How do they trust you? (Davenport wrote an interesting paper on the idea of faith as eschatologist trust in Fear and Trembling if you haven't read it. Westphal didn't like the idea and went so far as to write a book about why he didn't (Kierkegaard's Concept of Faith).

Another might be the claim of Moses that God wanted Israel to conquer and to utterly destroy all of the Canaanite nations in Canaan. How does that fit in with our notion of a "loving God," who is impartial and unbigoted?

How does a genocidal God fly in our modern thinking? It really doesn't, does it? And yet we believe it because we think perhaps there's something lacking in our modern, rationalist world that doesn't fully put into the equation the reality of a transcendent God, who has every right to make major judgments on this level.

Well, it's quite clearly in tension, on the face of it, with the notion of God as all-loving and forgiving. I suspect the issue there is an incomplete idea of God, and religious language getting in the way of the reality of the situation: God, aka, the supreme alien intelligence that created our very reality.

I would just say this. Christians have a common experience of God, and the deeper one goes in making God the source of his life, the more detailed his understanding of God seems to be. Some of the complexities and some of the problems seem to get ironed out.

If Judaism had lost its way in a particular generation, as Christ claimed, and if the trajectory of Jewish religion has continued down that path in error, then the Jewish concept of God, though real, is tainted and not entirely trustworthy.

But if as assume this as true, it's still not the case that Jews are knowingly on an erroneous trajectory. Is your idea of the 'forces of the world', in this case, one of knowledge or ignorance insofar as the subjects are concerned?

On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then Christians may or may not truly perceive God the way He is, depending on their level of commitment. Overall, I'd say the evidence is on the side of Christianity, and on the side of Jesus, when he said Israel in his time was utterly fake and sinful and about to be destroyed. It did happen.

These two thoughts aren't connected, but okay.

The "forces of this world" are what happens when divine revelation is left outside of the world. All the religious works that the Jews may do will have no benefit if God is not part of what they do--the "forces of the world" are beyond redemption.

So what, these people can literally never repent and enter into a relationship with God through Jesus? Why not? Is it that they're beyond redemption, or that they've rejected Jesus?

If anybody wants redemption, it will not be a matter of religious works alone. They must be coupled with divine revelation and with relationship with God Himself, because He is the source of all virtue. We must play by His rules, or we remain outside of His orbit, and continue to be the "forces of this world," beyond redemption.

But going back to what I said above about Abraham... (heck, poor Hosea.)

[RandyPNW]

If Abraham required a teleological suspension of the ethical to resolve the anxiety of being asked by God - thus duty-bound - to sacrifice one's only child then yes, that does seem difficult. But what you've written doesn't get to my question. Would you trust Abraham, or would you consider him a murderous madman? If you trust Abraham then do you take that on faith, but how? I think I'm asking something of a Kierkegaardian question, now that you bring him up. Faith isn't easy like the 19th century Danes thought. It's almost impossible, and given how difficult it is, how can you know that you've gotten it right, in your words

That's the million dollar question, yes. It *requires* subjectivity by its very nature. Transcendence has a rational connecting point, but one that can be counterfeit or misunderstood. How do we *know?* It has to be by personal experience. I'm of that school. Rationality plus experience.

I don't think anyone would have believed Abraham had he tried to tell someone else. But therein lies the tension with this idea of 'consulting the mind of God' for yourself, and trusting another person to do the same. How do they trust you? (Davenport wrote an interesting paper on the idea of faith as eschatologist trust in Fear and Trembling if you haven't read it. Westphal didn't like the idea and went so far as to write a book about why he didn't (Kierkegaard's Concept of Faith).

I only read "Fear and Trembling." I've long been interested in the question of knowledge, in empiricism, experience, subjectivity, etc. We're very "scientific" and "materialistic" today, and yet there is a natural sense of skepticism about everything we do. It screams out for transcendence, in my opinion. The trouble is, some have a vested interest in rejecting transcendent experience, and so we can't just take a poll.

As Christians we can, however, recognize similar experiences in each other, and compare them with biblical accounts. As for Abraham, we don't have to believe in him before he tries to kill his son. We are saved from that, and can now look back with 20/20 vision to see why God would say such an audacious thing to him. He wanted to convey the suffering God Himself experienced when mankind, His "sons," left Him.

[RandyPNW]

Another might be the claim of Moses that God wanted Israel to conquer and to utterly destroy all of the Canaanite nations in Canaan. How does that fit in with our notion of a "loving God," who is impartial and unbigoted?

How does a genocidal God fly in our modern thinking? It really doesn't, does it? And yet we believe it because we think perhaps there's something lacking in our modern, rationalist world that doesn't fully put into the equation the reality of a transcendent God, who has every right to make major judgments on this level.

Well, it's quite clearly in tension, on the face of it, with the notion of God as all-loving and forgiving. I suspect the issue there is an incomplete idea of God, and religious language getting in the way of the reality of the situation: God, aka, the supreme alien intelligence that created our very reality.

One way to put it.

But if as assume this as true, it's still not the case that Jews are knowingly on an erroneous trajectory. Is your idea of the 'forces of the world', in this case, one of knowledge or ignorance insofar as the subjects are concerned?

Depends on whether the Gospel has been successfully preached. This is the binary choice being given to men, to either accept a necessary relationship with God or to live autonomously, making decisions apart from consulting God's Spirit.

When one chooses to live apart from the knowledge of God, we have the "forces of the world," with their set of parameters, limitations, and understanding. When one accepts the knowledge of God, a whole other world opens up, in which God Himself fits into every equation.

The "forces of this world" are what happens when divine revelation is left outside of the world. All the religious works that the Jews may do will have no benefit if God is not part of what they do--the "forces of the world" are beyond redemption.

So what, these people can literally never repent and enter into a relationship with God through Jesus? Why not? Is it that they're beyond redemption, or that they've rejected Jesus?

No, people are given a choice when the Gospel is faithfully communicated to them!

[Athanasius]

As Christians we can, however, recognize similar experiences in each other, and compare them with biblical accounts. As for Abraham, we don't have to believe in him before he tries to kill his son. We are saved from that, and can now look back with 20/20 vision to see why God would say such an audacious thing to him. He wanted to convey the suffering God Himself experienced when mankind, His "sons," left Him.

Are you saying that had you been there, you would have thought that Abraham hadn't consulted the mind of God, and - if such a thing was known - wasn't operating in the spirit of Christ? Hindsight might vindicate Abraham, but until then, would he not be considered to be an agent of acting in line with the 'forces of this world'?

[Athanasius]

Depends on whether the Gospel has been successfully preached. This is the binary choice being given to men, to either accept a necessary relationship with God or to live autonomously, making decisions apart from consulting God's Spirit.

When one chooses to live apart from the knowledge of God, we have the "forces of the world," with their set of parameters, limitations, and understanding. When one accepts the knowledge of God, a whole other world opens up, in which God Himself fits into every equation.

But as one of Kierkegaard's pseudonyms wrote, knowledge of this kind isn't the same kind of knowledge as 2 + 2 = 4. You're free to frame the choice as binary but the existential reality is far from straightforward. You have a choice to become Muslim or stay Christian, but you don't, and why? For the same reason that Jews and Muslims don't immediately rush out to become Christians. They're acting as best they know how with what they've been given, and short of direct revelation I don't think it's reasonable to frame the reality of faith as a binary either/or.

No, people are given a choice when the Gospel is faithfully communicated to them!

It just seems a strange thing to say that they're "beyond redemption".

[RandyPNW]

Depends on whether the Gospel has been successfully preached. This is the binary choice being given to men, to either accept a necessary relationship with God or to live autonomously, making decisions apart from consulting God's Spirit.

When one chooses to live apart from the knowledge of God, we have the "forces of the world," with their set of parameters, limitations, and understanding. When one accepts the knowledge of God, a whole other world opens up, in which God Himself fits into every equation.

But as one of Kierkegaard's pseudonyms wrote, knowledge of this kind isn't the same kind of knowledge as 2 + 2 = 4. You're free to frame the choice as binary but the existential reality is far from straightforward. You have a choice to become Muslim or stay Christian, but you don't, and why? For the same reason that Jews and Muslims don't immediately rush out to become Christians. They're acting as best they know how with what they've been given, and short of direct revelation I don't think it's reasonable to frame the reality of faith as a binary either/or.

No, people are given a choice when the Gospel is faithfully communicated to them!

It just seems a strange thing to say that they're "beyond redemption".

Yes, I worded that poorly. And I don't blame you for misreading it. I meant to say that in the place where we live outside of Christ there is no redemption. If we remain there, we live "beyond redemption." I don't place anybody there, hopelessly and helplessly. We have free choice--to accept Christ's atonement, and all that involves, or not. Binary choice.

Some people see knowledge as dark and obscure, incapable of presenting us with binary choices. One religion makes claims, as do other religions. But the appearance of things often takes on the sense of reality, such as when someone does something charitable for you, and you just know it was from the heart.

Transcendent realities from God are like that. We live in a foggy, dark place, and wonder if what we're seeing we're really seeing. But God would never judge us unless the choices were acceptably clear. And I believe they are.