Skip to content

God needs sympathy

Oh yeah, from us! For often who He is or what He ought to be (by the prediction of ‘necessity’) are merely borrowed notions, or even hasty hurried (incomplete) estimations, or even a lower bar (of Him) we ourselves set upon Him. It may even be that He Himself may have earlier/initially had a disposition of anger/displeasure toward us(you) but I suppose He might like us to hold on (despite his rage!) and interpret his anger as passing, as only for our good. He likes to be trusted too, it doesn’t seem strange He might love being ‘taken for granted.’ Some kind of supreme trust, fondness, a confidence of His excellence his generosity, is what it looks like.

Be sympathetic to God, trust Him, believe Him. Hold on.

Advertisements

Faith ain’t irresponsibility!

In an ODB reading (13 Aug 2019 if I’m right) I read a recommendation that in our ‘problems’ we must have ‘faith in God’ (like Habakkuk). This set me thinking. Among the natural extensions of this principle is the struggle (problem) with sin, I unmistakably noted. My response was very different:

I realize that sin/temptation as a class of ‘problems’ relating to (the author’s recommendation of) faith in God, is different from typically amoral troubles. While spiritual struggle can also be a problem, it is also a responsibility. Responsibilities are not the class of problems where we wait to be ‘rescued’ from it, rather we struggle and come through. So if we are failing in some aspect of our spirituality we (well) know is not right to mess up on, then the solution here is to not merely confess some (article of) faith but actually do the dirty work (of changing conduct). So in a sense faith in God doesn’t solve the problem but awaits our action.

Also it occurred to me rather anew that sins that aren’t committed cannot be forgiven. That it is illogical to speak of such. So what we usually reckon as sin forgiven ‘once and for all’ is from the aspect of foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is only on the basis of what has been completed as to the truth of the agent making such a choice in an actual moment in time. The choice is totally the agent’s responsibility (for God does not ‘foreknow’ as truth/reality what never exists – so the human agent precedes in his functionally ‘completed’ act any fact of such an occurrence foreknown by God).

So the implication is, every time we sin, we need to seek and apply the antidote to sin (as a specific instance of repentance-faith). Or any mere reference to ‘faith’ following a (moral) failure then means that we’ve ‘reapplied’ in function the ‘forgiveness’ that God/Christ allows in our life and then strive to redo it right the next time around. Otherwise it’s not as if whether or not you seek or try to change, God almost readily cleans you up, leaving the implication that there is no fear or responsibility for forgiveness is automatic.

There is a clear misconception of this doctrine (not referring to the author per say, but a class of views). There is also a double standard about the truths and implications of such erroneous teaching. They artificially perceive an issue of logical impossibility of ‘seeking forgiveness’ in repeated episodes (erroneously inferring from the one time institution of the cleansing agent, the Blood of Christ, when the application of the antidote can and is employed multiple times, in fact constantly) and somehow seek to ‘defend’ some ‘efficacious’ (drawing from the negative reckoning that a man who has gone through the ‘sinner’s prayer’ must be saved of necessity failing which grace hasn’t been efficacious, from which they draw on a wholly illogical doctrine called efficacious grace from which is derived ridiculous ideas that forgiveness applies to uncommitted sin – this is nothing but a reformed psychosis) forgiveness of Christ (i.e., forgiveness of all sin once and for all, all past, present and future sin).

There is a place to understand such doctrine in the overall atonement act of Christ (even that only for the party of God -not men- capable of such reckoning), even that based on the natural normal understanding of reality’s realization in time, not some imaginary illusion of mere hollow prediction/predication without fulfilment.

Getting back, once again, (forgiveness) in personal applications (following remorse after wrongdoing) is not something one can confidently ‘assume’ or conveniently ‘own.’ It might only be for God to decide or say who might be saved and who not, and whether any expression/confession of intent or desire to change is sincere. Our job is to fear Him and walk in His ways, turn from our wicked ways and change (in keeping with the sincerity we tout), -I repeat CHANGE-, from those acts we profess to intend to leave behind and finally actually do the right things in their place. Only in such an eventuality any such forgiveness gains meaning. So it goes without saying that one must make sure we are working out our salvation in fear and trembling, in keeping with the great forgiveness that we have been afforded (instead of condemnation, for those very sins).

In fact along these lines I told myself that Christianity is among the hardest of faiths to subscribe to. Coz God doesn’t just end up raising tramps, but princes and princesses (in conduct, in character, in intent, in action). So our rearing is (designed to be) exceptional. He is very demanding coz the call is very high. He doesn’t just make princes of us but also priests, so one can imagine (how exacting the precision and perfection will get – for ‘be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’ is the persistent refrain). N lemme dish you out how exactly this type of obedience to God looks like: e.g. If we want to go left, He asks us to go right, if front, back. Coz His vison is so different for us than we might like. So only toward/near a point of maturity when we ourselves want to go where he might have already liked, that we are not at odds with God – usually the rarer space to be in! So any easy Christianity is a fraud. That’s also why it’s a narrow road.

Don’t be fooled! Faith in God is not the synonym of irresponsibility.

Positive offense, negative offense

That’s when you offend by pretending to be nice. When your niceties are artificial and unnecessary. The black of it will show coz when you really need to be nice, that’s just when your goodness will be missing.

When a positive offense backfires, you think you’re justified to negatively offend, that is cause harm. Such will receive a powerful opposition from God.

Setting up an offense

That’s when you want to elicit a ‘wrong’ from another against yourself. That’s when you’re looking to trip another and you set ‘em up to fail and they fail. And then you complain they have done wrong against you. Such doesn’t count coz their offense (of you) becomes justifiable. God may not hear you.

The disposition of offense

Every individual offense is punishable. But in a very disposition of offense since the intent is to be offensive, then the foolish assumption is that only the larger disposition (of enmity) is valid (even that only when countered, that is brought up). The truth is there is a cost. For every offense a price has to be paid. It’s called judgment. Only true offenses are entitled to a case, an accusation. What you need to do is to develop a disposition of goodness.

The fruit of evil

It is wrongly assumed that one can sow evil for another to reap it. In fact this is the foolish principle on which evil men operate: for they don’t sow evil for it to come back to themselves, but that another might suffer from its evil effects. The truth however is that evil is reaped by the one who sows it, and only abundantly so! Another good man affected by an evil man’s conduct is only affected as with an antigen, for after the brief spell of illness he is armed with the antibodies. The virus on the other hand is exposed and annihilated only all too soon.

God and the devil

I muttered to myself rather dejectedly ‘The devil is after me,’ and rather spontaneously came the add-on ‘but my Lord is after the devil!’ And did I break into a giggle?! bwahaha