After many years, I think I finally understand why I disagree

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You seem to have missed my point, because it is not that I disagree with Bible alone/sola scriptura as a principle it is that you seemed to have an issue with "mysticism" based on it not being Biblical terminology. So where is the terminology you use of "Bible alone" in the Bible? And if the terminology is not in the Bible, then how is that terminology "Bible alone" as you have laid it out?

The difference is that the word mysticism is tied with the new age. Yes, I know it has been used by Christians to not mean that. But today: Many people will think of the word mysticism in the negative way. This is not the case with the term “Bible alone.” There is no negative or sinful association with that term. In fact, the concept of Bible Alone is taught in the Bible itself. All of the Bible is Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, etc. so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works (Note: I am paraphrasing the verse here from memory). The point I wanted to get at is that the Bible is sufficient alone to teach doctrine and instruction in righteousness to make the man of God perfect unto all good works. So if the Bible is sufficient to meet this goal in making us perfect unto all good works, there is nothing outside of the Bible that is needed. Yes, God and His people are included in that. But by our study of God’s Word, and applying it to our lives, Scripture includes these things. God and His people abide by God’s Word. His Word is our guidance for all matters of faith and practice so that the man of God can be perfect unto all good works. I don’t need to seek out another holy book or find some kind of other teachings by men or by some other church to be perfect unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 gives me the sufficient answer that I seek. All Scripture is already profitable enough to be perfect unto all good works because it is inspired by God for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, you asked me what do I have to do with the Bible. It’s the same reason that all men need the Bible including Winfried. All believers need God’s grace. They are required to throw themselves down before the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ in the proper due times out of their life. For are we not all supposed to be running the race so as to obtain the prize as mentioned by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:24? This is why we need God’s Word (the Bible).



I never said he was not Christian. I am saying that all believers need the Bible from the beginning of their life up until the end of their lives. It is their lifeline to God when they pray, and when they love God and others, and when they desire to draw closer to the Lord.

But we have to be careful in uplifting a man. Paul warned us of this in 1 Corinthians 3 with the Corinthians. For some said, I am of Paul, and others said, I am of Apollos. We are nothing in and of ourselves. It is only God who is the source of all good. All good done in our lives should be reflected back at God. All praise should be given unto our Lord for any good in any life of a Christian.



Not at all. I prefer to attack the wrong beliefs, actions, etc. and not the individual. Sometimes they can seem indistinguishable, but we really do need to pray and love all people in our lives even when they might hurt us or when their beliefs are absolutely deplorable to us. I care for Winfried as a person and I am commanded by God to love him. I don’t know his heart as a believer in Jesus Christ. But what I don’t like is the belief he is promoting. It may seem minor and acceptable to you and others, but I do not like his belief of him trying to resurrect an old dead word like “mysticism” when that word is viewed as primarily negative now (i.e. it is associated with New age, etc.). It would be like trying to bring back the word “gay” as meaning happy and not the other meaning most people know it by today. There could be lots of problems in attempting to do that. Sure, there are churches and groups who use the word mysticism with no negative association. I do get that. But select groups do not get to determine how that word is viewed by most people in the world. We have to be willing to reach all people for Jesus Christ. The best way we can do that is by not offending others by using the wrong words giving people the wrong impressions about us (as believers).




Ask yourself this question. Can you see a teaching by Winfried that has influenced you that can be supported by the Bible? You know, the whole trying to resurrect a negative word idea like mysticism whereby it can give people the wrong impression about what we believe? Does God want us to confuse others? Does God want us to make other people think we are new age mystics by trying to bring back that word like it once was?



I am nothing. Christ is everything. I only speak based on what I have learned from God’s Word. His Word is my guidance and light of my path for my every day walk with God.
You definitely missed the point of my first post to you in this thread. But we can drop this since I'd rather not "get into it" with you over this or that tangential issue.

Are you in favor of his view of trying to resurrect the word mysticism?
That is what this is really about, right?
Nope. Not even close! Not even.

Anyways, we can simply agree to disagree and move on (of course).
I am just giving you what I feel is good and correct in following Christ according to His Word.
For I do not believe we need to add anything to God’s Word.
No added teachings or beliefs by men’s thoughts.
His Word is enough.
Actually, His Word (or an all too plain of reading of it in English) apparently isn't enough since there's so many folks who claim to be Christain all haggling over its various meanings and its applications ...
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mysticism, mystic, etc., are not dead words. Christians still use these words regularly when referring to the mystics. The words were never replaced.

Yes, we are all well aware that Christians today use these words. But these are select groups of Christians and not all Christians who use these words. You still cannot escape the problem, though. The little kid or Joe your neighbor down the street who thinks these words have to do with the new age or the occult. In their mind, that is the stigma they have about these words. Such a stigma cannot be changed. We all know Scripture says God is not the author of confusion. So why confuse others? That’s my point. Why use words that will give people the wrong impression about us as believers? Do we really want unbelievers to think we are new age mystics because of our preference to use fancy words?

Do you realize that there is a lady on YouTube who claims to be a Christian witch?
Could not Joe your neighbor down the street be confused with your using the word mystic after watching this lady’s YouTube video?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You definitely missed the point of my first post to you in this thread. But we can drop this since I'd rather not "get into it" with you over this or that tangential issue.

Nope. Not even close! Not even.

So why did you not like the negative book review then?

You said:
Actually, His Word (or an all too plain of reading of it in English) apparently isn't enough since there's so many folks who claim to be Christain all haggling over its various meanings and its applications ...

Are you saying there is not a way for us to easily know the Bible on our own with God?
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, we are all well aware that Christians today use these words. But these are select groups of Christians and not all Christians who use these words. You still cannot escape the problem, though. The little kid or Joe your neighbor down the street who thinks these words have to do with the new age or the occult. In their mind, that is the stigma they have about these words. Such a stigma cannot be changed. We all know Scripture says God is not the author of confusion. So why confuse others? That’s my point. Why use words that will give people the wrong impression about us as believers? Do we really want unbelievers to think we are new age mystics because of our preference to use fancy words?

The words are part of the religion and culture of over a billion christians. There is no problem. Granted, in certain corners of the U.S. where protestantism has a larger following, especially among those of more iconoclastic leanings, I can see why one might have the impression that things outside of that bubble are unusual. But, rest assured, the rest of the christian world is not a protestant majority.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Me too, how can one not? I think maybe the only full film I have ever seen him in was Holiday Inn, which was great, though it includes a female blackface number which was quite a culture shock watching it in the 2010's. I have no idea how they did "Say it with Firecrackers" without blowing his feet off lol. Rehearsals must have been fun ;)


Astaire's life has never been portrayed on film. He always refused permission for such portrayals, saying, "However much they offer me—and offers come in all the time—I shall not sell." Astaire's will included a clause requesting that no such portrayal ever take place; he commented, "It is there because I have no particular desire to have my life misinterpreted, which it would be."

Smart man :)

I really liked his performance as a physicist in the 1959 nuclear apocalypse film On the Beach, opposite Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Anthony Perkins.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Petros2015
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So why did you not like the negative book review then?
Basically, it's because Gilley's evaluation was way too short, barely qualifying (not qualifying, really) as a robustly academic type of peer-reviewed book review that we'd find in a solid, professional journal article.

Secondly, Gilley apparently isn't familiar with Corduan's thought (although, I am), but proceeds (again, all too briefly) to make it sound like Corduan is pandering to Christian Mysticism when actually (for those of us who have read the entire book and whether we actually agree with it or not) Corduan wasn't pandering but attempting the application of analytic philosophy and evaluating the idea, coming down in a mediated position that isn't one of pandering. (I mean, Corduan is a Protestant Evangelical, not Catholic or Orthodox.)

However, one of Corduan's ongoing projects as a Christian Philosopher and academic has been to offer some aid in enabling various kinds of Christians to at least better understand each other and as to how we each come at the Christian faith through our various historical traditions among the nations of the world. I'm not sure that Gilley understood this (or cared to do so, really) before reading and reviewing Corduan's book.

As for formal mysticism itself, I don't seek after it. I'm an Existentialist, a whole other problem.

And for me, it comes down to Hermeneutics, which applies to all human communication and texts that we produce, even the Bible.

Are you saying there is not a way for us to easily know the Bible on our own with God?
Yes, I've always said, and have only been saying for 10 years, EXACTLY this ... ! But I don't require other Christians to agree with me, and I don't seek to "attack" error whenever I may think I find it. Hence, the reason I wrote what I wrote up in post #10 above (before you came on to this thread). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The difference is that the word mysticism is tied with the new age. Yes, I know it has been used by Christians to not mean that. But today: Many people will think of the word mysticism in the negative way.

That's a matter resolved by education in Christian history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bible Highlighter said:
Are you in favor of his view of trying to resurrect the word mysticism?
That is what this is really about, right?
2PhiloVoid said:
Nope. Not even close! Not even.
Bible Highlighter said:
So why did you not like the negative book review then?
Basically, it's because Gilley's evaluation was way too short, barely qualifying (not qualifying, really) as a robustly academic type of peer-reviewed book review that we'd find in a solid, professional journal article.

Secondly, Gilley apparently isn't familiar with Corduan's thought (although, I am), but proceeds (again, all too briefly) to make it sound like Corduan is pandering to Christian Mysticism when actually (for those of us who have read the entire book and whether we actually agree with it or not) Corduan wasn't pandering but attempting the application of analytic philosophy and evaluating the idea, coming down in a mediated position that isn't one of pandering. (I mean, Corduan is a Protestant Evangelical, not Catholic or Orthodox.)

However, one of Corduan's ongoing projects as a Christian Philosopher and academic has been to offer some aid in enabling various kinds of Christians to at least better understand each other and as to how we each come at the Christian faith through our various historical traditions among the nations of the world. I'm not sure that Gilley understood this (or cared to do so, really) before reading and reviewing Corduan's book.

As for formal mysticism itself, I don't seek after it.

You said, I quote, “Gilley… proceeds… to make it sound like Corduan is pandering to Christian Mysticism when actually (for those of us who have read the entire book and whether we actually agree with it or not) Corduan wasn't pandering but attempting the application of analytic philosophy and evaluating the idea, coming down in a mediated position that isn't one of pandering.”

Well, Winfried, comes right out and says the purpose of his book in his own description of it.

full


Source:
Win Corduan's Mysticism

Winfried’s very first line is…. “In this book I am reclaiming the term mysticism for evangelical Christianity.”

So you either did not agree with Winfried or you did not understand the purpose of his book.
For you said you are not about the same purpose of trying to resurrect that word. So why defend the book when that is what the book is about?

In other words, from my perspective, your not making any sense, my friend.

You said:
I'm an Existentialist, a whole other problem.

According to a Google search:

Existentialists believe that we're born without purpose into a world that makes no sense — but each person has the ability to create his or her own sense of meaning and peace.

Source:
Existentialism For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies

Is this what you believe?

You said:
And for me, it comes down to Hermeneutics, which applies to all human communication and texts that we produce, even the Bible.

Yes, I've always said, and have only been saying for 10 years, EXACTLY this ... ! But I don't require other Christians to agree with me, and I don't seek to "attack" error whenever I may think I find it. Hence, the reason I wrote what I wrote up in post #10 above (before you came on to this thread). :rolleyes:

I believe some aspects of God’s Word are plain and easy to understand. Other parts take a lot of comparing Scripture with Scripture and prayer to find the answer.

For example: I did not know right away that NT believers are to follow the New Covenant (or New Testament) commands primarily and they are not under the 613 Laws of Moses (even though certain moral laws may have been repeated or carried over). I did not know right away about how the early Jewish apostles did not have a full knowledge on the one baptism mentioned to the Ephesians believers. I also did not know in the beginning that Paul primarily referred to the 613 Laws of Moses when he used to refer to words like “the Law” or “works.” Paul was not referring to the commands that come from Jesus and His followers. So yes, I understand, God’s Word is not always easy to understand, but I believe it is not impossible or extremely difficult. The difficulty is only in the user or reader. If a believer is looking to justify outside beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, then I believe it is more difficult for them to understand the Word in many places.

In any event, may God bless you (even if we may disagree on certain things).
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's a matter resolved by education in Christian history.

The same can be said for the word “gay,” (which was once understood as meaning happy), but I don’t think it is wise to try and re-educate people by trying to bring that word as meaning happy alone back into society. Trouble will only arise by doing so. Also, what is there to gain, as well? Mysticism will always have that bag stigma and always confuse others. Why even associate with it anymore? Is it not more beneficial to simply not use that word and focus on what the Bible teaches? Does not the word mystic conjure up negative meanings for you? It does for me. The first thing I think of when I seen that lady on YouTube who claims to be a Christian witch is that she is a Christian mystic. That describes clearly what she is. So then we have to explain the differences of between her and others? Sounds too complicated to me. Believers are to be holy and separate from the world.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The words are part of the religion and culture of over a billion christians. There is no problem. Granted, in certain corners of the U.S. where protestantism has a larger following, especially among those of more iconoclastic leanings, I can see why one might have the impression that things outside of that bubble are unusual. But, rest assured, the rest of the christian world is not a protestant majority.

Well, I am not exactly Protestant. So I am not for defending all of what Protestant’s believe although I do agree with certain beliefs held by them that many Christians share (like the Trinity, loving God, and others, we walk by faith, etc.). I am strongly against the Protestant view of Soteriology. For they make salvation too one dimensional. I believe we are initially saved by God’s grace, and we make that our foundation. However, I believe salvation continues in the Sanctification Process. We are to enter the Sanctification Process by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to live a holy and sanctified life by God’s Word (the Bible). In my walk with God by His Word, I have not received any indication by His Word that we are to look for teachings within another holy book, or church (separate from Scripture, i.e. the Bible). There is also no evidence that proves that any outside teachings by some church are holy and divine like the Bible is. The Bible itself teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works. So if I can be perfect unto all good works solely by Scripture, then what need do I have for any outside teachings beyond the Bible on spiritual matters of the faith? Nothing, of course.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You said, I quote, “Gilley… proceeds… to make it sound like Corduan is pandering to Christian Mysticism when actually (for those of us who have read the entire book and whether we actually agree with it or not) Corduan wasn't pandering but attempting the application of analytic philosophy and evaluating the idea, coming down in a mediated position that isn't one of pandering.”

Well, Winfried, comes right out and says the purpose of his book in his own description of it.
Really? wow.

Source:
Win Corduan's Mysticism

Winfried’s very first line is…. “In this book I am reclaiming the term mysticism for evangelical Christianity.”

So you either did not agree with Winfried or you did not understand the purpose of his book.
For you said you are not about the same purpose of trying to resurrect that word. So why defend the book when that is what the book is about?

In other words, from my perspective, your not making any sense, my friend.
I hate to have to say this, but from my vantage point you've just shot yourself in the foot. The most unfortunate thing is I don't think you realize you've shot yourself in the foot through a faulty demonstration of both hermeneutics and logic, and you have thereby undermined your own credibility on this topic.

...... But, that's ok I guess since I'm beginning to see a pattern in your thinking that displays some apparent personal cognitive challenges, so if this is the case with you, then I won't press the issue. I'll just let it rest here being that you're a fellow brother in Christ and you apparently need an extra bit of grace and understanding.

According to a Google search:

Existentialists believe that we're born without purpose into a world that makes no sense — but each person has the ability to create his or her own sense of meaning and peace.

Source:
Existentialism For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies

Is this what you believe?
Nope, not exactly, although I will admit that I think we all have difficulties in trying to make sense of the world around us. And despite that, this is where my existentialism diverges from the truncated and all too short definition of it that you think you've found on an "Existentialism For Dummies Cheat Sheet." :rolleyes:

So, let's just drop this tangent since I don't think it's copacetic to continue on with it when the OP has another direction of inquiry and discussion.

I believe some aspects of God’s Word are plain and easy to understand. Other parts take a lot of comparing Scripture with Scripture and prayer to find the answer.

For example: I did not know right away that NT believers are to follow the New Covenant (or New Testament) commands primarily and they are not under the 613 Laws of Moses (even though certain moral laws may have been repeated or carried over). I did not know right away about how the early Jewish apostles did not have a full knowledge on the one baptism mentioned to the Ephesians believers. I also did not know in the beginning that Paul primarily referred to the 613 Laws of Moses when he used to refer to words like “the Law” or “works.” Paul was not referring to the commands that come from Jesus and His followers. So yes, I understand, God’s Word is not always easy to understand, but I believe it is not impossible or extremely difficult. The difficulty is only in the user or reader. If a believer is looking to justify outside beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, then I believe it is more difficult for them to understand the Word in many places.
ok.

In any event, may God bless you (even if we may disagree on certain things).
Alright, thank you! The Lord bless you and keep you as well, brother! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The difference is that the word mysticism is tied with the new age. Yes, I know it has been used by Christians to not mean that. But today: Many people will think of the word mysticism in the negative way. This is not the case with the term “Bible alone.” There is no negative or sinful association with that term. In fact, the concept of Bible Alone is taught in the Bible itself. All of the Bible is Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, etc. so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works (Note: I am paraphrasing the verse here from memory). The point I wanted to get at is that the Bible is sufficient alone to teach doctrine and instruction in righteousness to make the man of God perfect unto all good works. So if the Bible is sufficient to meet this goal in making us perfect unto all good works, there is nothing outside of the Bible that is needed. Yes, God and His people are included in that. But by our study of God’s Word, and applying it to our lives, Scripture includes these things. God and His people abide by God’s Word. His Word is our guidance for all matters of faith and practice so that the man of God can be perfect unto all good works. I don’t need to seek out another holy book or find some kind of other teachings by men or by some other church to be perfect unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 gives me the sufficient answer that I seek. All Scripture is already profitable enough to be perfect unto all good works because it is inspired by God for that purpose.
Gotta love when the goal posts move mid-drive. I've never made such an association, nor do I believe that is what most people associate with the word. This seems like something that is peculiar to you and perhaps a certain subculure. Occult practices can fall under mysticism, but that's true for broad categories in general.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And this kind of thing has been the one thing that has bothered me most in my mind and heart: that Christians often just go at each other, making digs at each other, often making little effort to understand one another, pushing for precedence among other Christians for influence, and sometimes, even burning each other at the stake, condemning each other with a plethora of invectives about how one or the other is "going to hell" because there's some kind of disagreement.

And I've always wondered, "Why does this have to go on to this extent"?

Because only a tiny percent of Christians actually trust Jesus.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums