A question about Christian practice

[rturner76]

What you are referring to is called theosis in the East and deification or divinization in the West.

Yes, thank you. I was having a hard time remembering what I read. I know there are whole books written on the subject but I haven't read any yet.

 

[Taodeching]

What you are referring to is called theosis in the East and deification or divinization in the West.

Thank you

 

[Taodeching]

There is a practice in Eastern Orthodoxy of mysticism where one focuses on becoming one with God. I'm not sure if I'm describing it correctly but in western Christianity, there is a prevailing belief that we cannot physically experience the presence of God until we die. I have read that through Orthodox mysticism if one can go deep enough mystically, one can experience the presence of God here on Earth. I have never met anyone who has done this but the mystical meditative process of reaching out to God I believe would bring a person to oneness with the universe, God, and self.

Orthodox philosophers tend to lean more toward an eastern way of thinking. You have to really dig deep into the writings of the theologians to find out about eastern mysticism. I have only scratched the surface in my studies.

Thank you. It seems from this thread that many Protestants are afraid of things like the word "Balance" and becoming centered or as one poster put it theosis or deification. It is a shame that this has to be this way even Paul the Apostle talks about our two sides and how we have to fed one more than the other, how to be balanced. I think, though I maybe wrong that it is the old afraid of anything new or unfamiliar

 

[aiki]

The word "balance" doesn't bother me, Protestant though I am. I find inner equilibrium, inner stability, by giving God full control of me, not by mystical meditative practices. This is what God's word says.

The apostle Paul writes of the old and new man, the carnal mind and spiritual mind, but he doesn't teach that there is to be some balance between them but, rather, a crucifying of the former and a manifesting of the latter.

My looking askance at your "finding balance" stuff comes, not from fear, but from a total absence of any such teaching in the Bible, the Christian's manual of Christian belief and practice.

 

[zoidar]

I was thinking and wondering about centering or maybe balance. Is there such a thing as balance or finding one's center in Christianity? I know in some religions there are those things and I got to wonder if Christianity has something similar or if Christianity is different all together

Jesus at the center of it all. Trusting in him, is centering.

 

[Taodeching]

My looking askance at your "finding balance" stuff comes, not from fear, but from a total absence of any such teaching in the Bible, the Christian's manual of Christian belief and practice.

I do believe there is more to being a Christian than just a book full of books, there is also Tradition. Not everything is contained in the Bible and I do not believe it is the Christian's manual for belief and practice. Some may believe that but I do not.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

A centre needs a structure around it. The bible is that structure. The centre of the bible is the temple. That is the big picture inside the bigger picture.

 

[Taodeching]

A centre needs a structure around it. The bible is that structure. The centre of the bible is the temple.

I believe it is the Church not the Bible

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I believe it is the Church not the Bible

The church is made of wood, the bible stone (shattered interpretively) and the temple flesh.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe it is the Church not the Bible

I think your sentiment points in the right direction, because what people often forget is that the Christian Bible was compiled by the ancient church for the ancient church, but it is as the Eastern Orthodox Christians like to say, not something that is apart from Tradition, but is rather the center of Tradition, the means of determining what else can appropriately be considered to be a part of the kerygma of the Church (see Thessalonians 2 ).

There is also the Anglican tripod and the related Wesleyan Quadrilateral; the former being Scripture, Tradition and Reason and the latter adding the additional and I think important element of experience. Although I think we do have to be careful, in that we do not have the authority to deviate from scriptural tradition and the ancient Apostolic and Patristic exegesis of scripture, which can be said to be, in my view, somewhat definitive on all basic points of doctrine.

 

[aiki]

I do believe there is more to being a Christian than just a book full of books, there is also Tradition. Not everything is contained in the Bible and I do not believe it is the Christian's manual for belief and practice. Some may believe that but I do not.

No one has said that everything is contained in the Bible. But it supplies to the Christian believer everything they need to know to be a God-honoring, Christ-centered person. See 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

The Pharisees were big on tradition. Jesus called them "hypocrites," "white-washed tombs," and "sons of hell." He rebuked them for putting tradition on par with - actually, above - the divine revelation of Scripture. (Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:6-9)

Quite honestly, if you don't regard the Bible as the foundational source for all Christian belief and practice, then I can't call you a Christian brother. There is no Christianity apart from the truth of God's word that structures, and defines, and directs it. Spurning the Bible as the special divine revelation it is that "equips the man of God for all good works," is tantamount to setting yourself above God and essentially worshiping yourself. Yikes. No one who is truly God's child would do this.

Jeremiah 15:16
16 Your words were found and I ate them, And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O LORD God of hosts.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Pharisees were big on tradition. Jesus called them "hypocrites," "white-washed tombs," and "sons of hell." He rebuked them for putting tradition on par with - actually, above - the divine revelation of Scripture.

No, he rebuked them for their legalism, for the specific idiosyncratic legal doctrines they were forming from a novel reading of the Old Testament which was at odds with the traditional interpretation that stretches back at least as far as Esdras the Priest and the prophet Nehemiah. It was a case where the ancient, and more correct, interpretation of scripture was being intentionally supplanted by the Pharisaical interpretation, which later developed into the Mishnah and the Talmud, and the Sadducean interpretation, which in its rejection of resurrection, set itself against more ancient forms of Judaism (but the Sadducees were also weak compared to the Pharisees).

Judaism in the time of Christ had descended into a bad situation, owing to the schism with the Samaritans, and the bitter rivalry between four “denominations” whose doctrines clearly represented a departure from the ancient and holy traditions of the Hebrew faith, those being the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Hellenic Jews.

 

[Taodeching]

Quite honestly, if you don't regard the Bible as the foundational source for all Christian belief and practice, then I can't call you a Christian brother.

As you wish,we all must do as we do. As the above poster stated it is the center of Tradition. The Bible though is not the center of a believers life, the Bible has not always existed but the Church has. Though is getting quite far from the OP. Thank you for your response

 

[aiki]

The Bible though is not the center of a believers life, the Bible has not always existed but the Church has.

??? I think you need to ponder this statement for a bit and ask yourself if it actually makes sense.

I have never said the Bible is the center of the believer's life.

And the Church is only 2000 years old, preceded by the Tanakh, the OT, by many centuries.

 

[Tone]

Anyway, enough of the philosophy

Yes, enough with the philosorhapsody...


*...already...

 

[Taodeching]

??? I think you need to ponder this statement for a bit and ask yourself if it actually makes sense.

I have never said the Bible is the center of the believer's life.

And the Church is only 2000 years old, preceded by the Tanakh, the OT, by many centuries.

The universal Church put the Bible together, it didn't just pop into existence. You and I will not agree because you view things very strangely from my perspective

 

[aiki]

No, he rebuked them for their legalism, for the specific idiosyncratic legal doctrines they were forming from a novel reading of the Old Testament which was at odds with the traditional interpretation that stretches back at least as far as Esdras the Priest and the prophet Nehemiah. It was a case where the ancient, and more correct, interpretation of scripture was being intentionally supplanted by the Pharisaical interpretation, which later developed into the Mishnah and the Talmud, and the Sadducean interpretation, which in its rejection of resurrection, set itself against more ancient forms of Judaism (but the Sadducees were also weak compared to the Pharisees).

Judaism in the time of Christ had descended into a bad situation, owing to the schism with the Samaritans, and the bitter rivalry between four “denominations” whose doctrines clearly represented a departure from the ancient and holy traditions of the Hebrew faith, those being the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Hellenic Jews.

This is all a lot of historical blather. You appear to want to counter my remarks, not with showing me wrong from the text of Scripture from which I made my point, but with a vaguely-related torrent of historical assertions.

 

[aiki]

The universal Church put the Bible together, it didn't just pop into existence. You and I will not agree because you view things very strangely from my perspective

I "view things strangely," in your opinion, because, it seems to me, you know little about the Christian faith. You are aware, are you not, that the larger part of the Bible is derived from the Tanakh? Do you know how long the Tanakh was in use prior to the beginning of the Christian Church?

 

[Taodeching]

I "view things strangely," in your opinion, because, it seems to me, you know little about the Christian faith. You are aware, are you not, that the larger part of the Bible is derived from the Tanakh? Do you know how long the Tanakh was in use prior to the beginning of the Christian Church?

Unfortunately it is you who knows little about Christianity. I am placing you on ignore, you only want to argue not answer the question

 

[aiki]

I have answered your question. Directly and biblically.

Ignore away! Though, it's doubtful you'll ever discover the truth by making this a habit.