Separated From God Again?

[Samie]

God (and Jesus) speaks of those things that are NOT YET - as if they ARE. 

    Romans 4:17  “God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;”

    These people did not yet exist, as sheep within His "one fold". 

Jesus is simply saying that there are other people who WILL RESPOND when He calls them.  He speaks of them as if they are already part of His flock, BECAUSE he knows that they will respond.  When Jesus spoke these words, He said this because His Father told Him that many others would respond to His call. 

It's the same reason why Jesus said, "All authority is given unto me - in Heaven and in earth".   He had not yet - not at that point - been given this authority (dominion), but he spoke as if it had been, BECAUSE He knew that this would be the SURE and CERTAIN, OUTCOME. 

Hebrews 2:8 "'You have put all things in subjection under his feet.' For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him" (NKJ)

It seems to me that when a statement in the Bible does not jibe with your position, you change the tense of the verb.  From present to future.  "I have other sheep" to "I will have other sheep".  From "all authority is given me" to "all authority will be given me".

It is also possible that the "other sheep" were people who HAD responded to the Spirit of God, insofar as they were able, with limited knowledge.  They may have been searching to know God.  These people would definitely be "His sheep" BECAUSE they had responded to the drawing of the Spirit.

I guess this is new to your teaching.  You were teaching those who never knew Christ will be resurrected in the 8th millennium and will be given the opportunity to hear the gospel, and they will then decide to choose whom to serve.  Now you are saying that even those who had not known Christ are His sheep and belong to His Flock.  You are almost inside the fence where I am.

 

These "other sheep" are NOT described as young children. 

You say that those who have believed in Jesus are the sheep in the Lord's flock.  Also, little children are not yet in His flock because they cannot yet believe and they are NOT yet His sheep.  So whose sheep and in whose flock are the little children in the new earth?  The Father Himself described to Isaiah the conditions in the new earth with little children (see Isa 11:6-9).

[8thdaypriest]

Correct.  Adam and Eve were not BORN (created) separated from God. 

God did say that they would DIE, if they ate of the tree.  DEATH seems pretty separating - to me. 

[8thdaypriest]

I think that Eve and Adam separated themselves - from God.  They hid from Him. 

They no longer ENJOYED His presence. 

[8thdaypriest]

Rachel said,

It is also possible that the "other sheep" were people who HAD responded to the Spirit of God, insofar as they were able, with limited knowledge.  They may have been searching to know God.  These people would definitely be "His sheep" BECAUSE they had responded to the drawing of the Spirit.

Samie replied,

I guess this is new to your teaching.  You were teaching those who never knew Christ will be resurrected in the 8th millennium and will be given the opportunity to hear the gospel, and they will then decide to choose whom to serve.  Now you are saying that even those who had not known Christ are His sheep and belong to His Flock.  You are almost inside the fence where I am.

Rachel answers:

I was thinking of people like Cornelius.  He had HEARD enough to be very attracted to the religion of the Jews.  He had HEARD of John the Baptist.  I was thinking of people who were attracted to the Jewish faith, but had not knowledge of Christ. 

[8thdaypriest]

Samie wrote to Rachel:

You say that those who have believed in Jesus are the sheep in the Lord's flock.  Also, little children are not yet in His flock because they cannot yet believe and they are NOT yet His sheep.  So whose sheep and in whose flock are the little children in the new earth?  The Father Himself described to Isaiah the conditions in the new earth with little children (see Isa 11:6-9).

Rachel replies:

I believe the descriptions of children are prophecies of the 8th millennium.  All these children will be resurrected with "the rest of the dead".  I believe they will grow up in the "new earth" after Jesus has restored it from the damage by the last plagues. 

IF - as you say, these children will be resurrected at the second coming, then why are they STILL CHILDREN - a thousand years later, in the earth made new?  They didn't grow during the 7th millennium?

Or - do you believe this vision is describing the early part of the 7th millennium, and you believe the "redeemed" will be living on this earth, rather than in Heaven, during that millennium. 

Edited September 6, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[Samie]

Samie wrote to Rachel:

You say that those who have believed in Jesus are the sheep in the Lord's flock.  Also, little children are not yet in His flock because they cannot yet believe and they are NOT yet His sheep.  So whose sheep and in whose flock are the little children in the new earth?  The Father Himself described to Isaiah the conditions in the new earth with little children (see Isa 11:6-9).

Rachel replies:

I believe the descriptions of children are prophecies of the 8th millennium.  All these children will be resurrected with "the rest of the dead".  I believe they will grow up in the "new earth" after Jesus has restored it from the damage by the last plagues. 

If they had grown up and then believed and then allowed in the new earth, they should have been seen as grown-ups instead of little children.  This is an inherent problem with your position.

IF - as you say, these children will be resurrected at the second coming, then why are they STILL CHILDREN - a thousand years later, in the earth made new?  They didn't grow during the 7th millennium?

Or - do you believe this vision is describing the early part of the 7th millennium, and you believe the "redeemed" will be living on this earth, rather than in Heaven, during that millennium. 

Yes, I believe the "redeemed" will be living on this earth, rather than in Heaven, during the millennium that follows the Second Coming. The little children are those who died at infancy and were resurrected together with the righteous at the SC.

[pnattmbtc]

If I were to answer this, then, for me, to be separated from God is to be NOT written in the Book of Life and to be NOT separated from God is to be written in the Book of Life. And I think I have discussed the importance of being written in the Book of Life in the thread "Understanding the Gospel through the Book of Life".

This would mean the more people who die before the age of accountability, the better, as far as their eternal salvation is concerned.  So fighting starvation and disease among young children, under your hypothesis, would tremendously decrease their chance of eternal bliss, and, conversely, whatever could be done to increase their chance of death would increase their change of eternal bliss.

When one winds up with such an odd logical conclusion, one must question the premise that led there.

[Samie]

 

This would mean the more people who die before the age of accountability, the better, as far as their eternal salvation is concerned.  So fighting starvation and disease among young children, under your hypothesis, would tremendously decrease their chance of eternal bliss, and, conversely, whatever could be done to increase their chance of death would increase their change of eternal bliss.

Those are your own statements you want to put into my mouth, brother.

When one winds up with such an odd logical conclusion, one must question the premise that led there.

And that's your own conclusion, too.  So question yourself, and answer it.

[Samie]

Why were we written in the Book of Life?  Love, brother, love.

Why care for little children? Love, brother, love.

Why leave little children to die at infancy? No love, brother, no love.

Why increase the chance of dying of little children? No love, brother, no love.

And readers of this thread should should have realized whose position is for love.

Reminds me of one lay-preacher who used to leave his young children to the care of angels because he will do what to him is God's work - conduct Bible studies.  Result: whenever he goes up the pulpit to preach, his once young children now grownup, march out of the church.

[pnattmbtc]

When one winds up with such an odd logical conclusion, one must question the premise that led there.

Samie: And that's your own conclusion, too.  So question yourself, and answer it.

Not a very good response!  If we have positions which lead to such conclusions, that's problematic.  It's not "my" conclusion, as I didn't invent logic.  A satisfactory response would be to either show where the argument is invalid, or junk the premise (as opposed to ducking the issue).

If you think:

A.People before the age of X will all, without exception go to heaven.

B.Very few people after the age of X will go to heaven.

Then it's obvious that the more people who don't make it to X, the better.

[pnattmbtc]

Why were we written in the Book of Life?  Love, brother, love.

Why care for little children? Love, brother, love.

Why leave little children to die at infancy? No love, brother, no love.

Why increase the chance of dying of little children? No love, brother, no love.

And readers of this thread should should have realized whose position is for love.

Reminds me of one lay-preacher who used to leave his young children to the care of angels because he will do what to him is God's work - conduct Bible studies.  Result: whenever he goes up the pulpit to preach, his once young children now grownup, march out of the church.

Why would you think it a loving thing to do to do something which would most like result in a person's not going to heaven?

[pnattmbtc]

Thank you for the responses to my separation question, namely what it would mean for an infant to be born separate from God.  Samie said it means not to have one's name written in the book of life.  8thday said to be born with a fallen nature.  Neither of these answers seems satisfactory to me, because neither one reflects what "separatation" means.

This does, however:

8thday: I think that Eve and Adam separated themselves - from God.  They hid from Him. 

They no longer ENJOYED His presence. 

 To be separate involves being apart.  Obviously this has nothing to do with something being written in a book.  Clearly it has something to do with one's running away from God.  The nature question seems somewhere in the middle (in terms of clarity), but given that separation involves being apart, it seems like one could make an argument that one's nature could *lead* to separation, but wouldn't be separation of itself.

Separation could only occur if a young child, or God, performed an action which would lead to the two parties being separated, and I'm not sure this makes sense.  God isn't going to separate Himself from an infant -- I think we can agree on that.  Also we have evidence of the Holy Spirit's involvement with the very young, so I'm not sure the concept that we are born separated (or not separated) from God works.

 

[8thdaypriest]

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (NKJ)

Are we not BORN WITH a carnal nature?  To me that means just a fleshly nature, without "the indwelling" of the spirit. 

It makes me think of animals. 

I remember God told Adam that He would "put the fear of you" into the animals and birds.  From that time on, the animals ran from man. 

Now, some animals CAN be "tamed", or "domesticated".  If they are handled by humans from very early on.  

A cat must be handled by a human within the first 7 days of its life or it will be "wild".  It will fear humans and run from them.  You might be able to "tame" one, but it would take a lot of patience, and gradually leaving food out for the cat.  We used to hunt for the newborn kittens in the back rooms of my grandfather's meat market.  He liked to keep cats because they kept down the population of mice. 

In a sense, we humans are "wild" towards God.  He woos us very patiently. 

[8thdaypriest]

Are we not all separated from God - at this time?  We are not living in the spirit dimension.  We cannot see God's form, or His glory.  We are "here" rather than "there.

If I'm in East Texas, and my friend is in Albuquerque - are we not separated from one another?  In the days before telephone and internet - folks were truly separated. 

God - by His Spirit, is "with us" - but in what sense.  We do not audibly HEAR Him speak to us.  We cannot touch Him, or see Him, or smell Him, because HE lives in another dimension, and we can't get "there".  Right now - we just have a "sense" of His presence (maybe mostly because we've been told that He is "with us"). 

I'll admit that I have "heard Him" several times, in my mind - but NOT audibly.  I've never received a "vision".  I've never been visited by angelic beings.  Mostly He just brings a few words from Scripture, or from a devotional song to my memory, which answer my question, or comfort me. 

I agree, there were "exceptions".  Abraham actually SAW the Son of God, in human form, as did Moses, and John the apostle, and maybe Daniel.  Job heard Him speak, as did Israel.  But Israel didn't want to hear Him again.  They wanted Moses to act as mediator.  Israel actually WANTED greater separation.  What does that say, about our nature, or the condition we are born in?

[8thdaypriest]

Samie wrote to Rachel:

You say that those who have believed in Jesus are the sheep in the Lord's flock.  Also, little children are not yet in His flock because they cannot yet believe and they are NOT yet His sheep.  So whose sheep and in whose flock are the little children in the new earth?  The Father Himself described to Isaiah the conditions in the new earth with little children (see Isa 11:6-9).

Rachel replies:

I believe the descriptions of children are prophecies of the 8th millennium.  All these children will be resurrected with "the rest of the dead".  I believe they will grow up in the "new earth" after Jesus has restored it from the damage by the last plagues. 

IF - as you say, these children will be resurrected at the second coming, then why are they STILL CHILDREN - a thousand years later, in the earth made new?  They didn't grow during the 7th millennium?

Or - do you believe this vision is describing the early part of the 7th millennium, and you believe the "redeemed" will be living on this earth, rather than in Heaven, during that millennium. 

I wanted to add a little more. 

If little children are resurrected at the second coming, along WITH all of those who died in ignorance (for whatever reason) then, that means ONLY the wicked (lost) will be resurrected at the 8th millennium - to be judged and execute AGAIN.  I know you believe they are all raised and judged and executed at the Second Coming.  So the 8th millennium Gog/Magog execution, would be execution #2.  I do not like what that says about our God. 

I believe those who resisted the spirit during their lives, to the point where they were unsave-able (terminally rebellious) will be resurrected, judged and executed, at the Second Coming.  Those who lived and died in ignorance - including all children - will be resurrected as "the rest of the dead" AT the 8th millennium.  They will then be taught the truths of God and will either respond to the Spirit of God, until they are "saved" or they will resist until they join the army of Gog and are consumed in that battle. 

I like my scenario better.  1.  Because it's just.  The wicked only get executed ONCE.   2.  Because it's just - everyone is tested.  No one get's a "free-pass" because of when they died, or what the circumstances of their lives were. 

[8thdaypriest]

I know that Samie has the righteous coming BACK from Heaven, to fight alongside Christ and His angels, against the wicked who have survived the 7 last plagues.  I find that really hard to imagine. 

The 7 last plagues destroy all vegetation( which means no oxygen), kill everything in the ocean, turn all water (fresh and salt) "to blood", which means it is undrinkable.  The sun gets 7 times hotter.  EVERY mountain and island sink - worldwide.  The "sky" is split open.  So no atmosphere.  Then "hail" stones of 100 pds weight, fall "upon men" - which means there will be a lot of them!! 

If Noah's flood killed every mammal and bird and reptile outside of the ARK, and what's coming is going to be "like it was in the days of Noah", what makes you think ANYONE left on this earth would survive, and then need to be killed by one of us, fighting with Jesus? 

It's gonna take some major, major, healing before the earth would support life again. 

Personally - I believe the earth is going to "rest" for 1000 years.  According to the LORD, desolation IS "rest". 

[8thdaypriest]

I apologize for getting OFF TOPIC.

[pnattmbtc]

A cat must be handled by a human within the first 7 days of its life or it will be "wild". 

I thought this said "car".  Made me laugh. 

[pnattmbtc]

We know a lot more about the mind than we used to, but still very little.  I remember the things we studied in pychology, and it seems like the dark ages, when blood-letting was a common "cure".  They really didn't know anything about the way the mind worked.  Even now, today, I read something to the effect that there are billions of neurons of like a thousand different types, and we understand how almost none of them work.  This is one of the problems of AI; to make something "think" in a human sort of way, one would need to understand how the human brain works, and we're a long ways away from that.

But we know more than we used to, and one of the things that can be done is to see which part of the brain fire when different things are being thought of, such as trying to make moral decisions, or thinking about God.

What made me think of this was the comments about the Spirit and how the Spirit communicates with us.  All communication happens though the brain, and we are wired to experience things through our senses.  Somehow God is able to bypass our ordinary sensory perception to communicate with us, in a way that's really amazing, as if we were, I don't know, maybe dreaming; just so soft (usually), almost as if we're just making it up.  It's really difficult to know where God stops and we start, and, of course, our experience of God is so heavily influenced by ourselves that we get the two mixed up all the time.  :(.  Winding up with a God in our own image.  Yuck.

Fortunately we have an objective picture we can always come back to in Jesus Christ.  Even here, of course, we constantly misinterpret, but there's so much light that we can still get some things right.  Thank God for that.

[8thdaypriest]

We know a lot more about the mind than we used to, but still very little.  I remember the things we studied in pychology, and it seems like the dark ages, when blood-letting was a common "cure".  They really didn't know anything about the way the mind worked.  Even now, today, I read something to the effect that there are billions of neurons of like a thousand different types, and we understand how almost none of them work.  This is one of the problems of AI; to make something "think" in a human sort of way, one would need to understand how the human brain works, and we're a long ways away from that.

But we know more than we used to, and one of the things that can be done is to see which part of the brain fire when different things are being thought of, such as trying to make moral decisions, or thinking about God.

What made me think of this was the comments about the Spirit and how the Spirit communicates with us.  All communication happens though the brain, and we are wired to experience things through our senses.  Somehow God is able to bypass our ordinary sensory perception to communicate with us, in a way that's really amazing, as if we were, I don't know, maybe dreaming; just so soft (usually), almost as if we're just making it up.  It's really difficult to know where God stops and we start, and, of course, our experience of God is so heavily influenced by ourselves that we get the two mixed up all the time.  :(.  Winding up with a God in our own image.  Yuck.

Fortunately we have an objective picture we can always come back to in Jesus Christ.  Even here, of course, we constantly misinterpret, but there's so much light that we can still get some things right.  Thank God for that.

I think we were created with a built in "receiver" that can "hear" or sense God.  Some call it the conscience. 

[pnattmbtc]

I think we were created with a built in "receiver" that can "hear" or sense God.  Some call it the conscience. 

I think that's a good way of looking at it.

[B/W Photodude]

I think we were created with a built in "receiver" that can "hear" or sense God.  Some call it the conscience. 

God helmet

There is research going on and fits well into the field of neurotheology ["Neurotheology" is a neologism that describes the scientific study of the neural correlates of religious or spiritual beliefs and practices. Other researchers have rejected the term, preferring to use terms like "spiritual neuroscience" or "neuroscience of religion".] One device has been invented which when it beams magnetic waves into the brain causes in the recipient a mystical experience or a feeling of the presence of the divine. It has it skeptics but it also has it's supporter and has caused quite a stir at times in recent history. There was even an editorial in the Review regarding the God helmet. The conclusion one might draw from this research is that there is a physiological basis for appreciation of God and the divine.

It has also been known that people who have right temporal lobe seizures also have an intense religious focus to their lives and will write prodigiously on topics of religion. Unfortunately, religious skeptics have used this knowledge in the past to attempt the discrediting important people in religion. The Apostle Paul's experience on the road to Damascus is said by the skeptics to have been the result of an epileptic seizure. More modern skeptics like claim that EGWs visions were the result of a seizure disorder related to being hit in the face by a rock, and we all know she had visions and was a writer of religious books all of her adult life. Muhammad is said by some to have had a seizure disorder. So you see, people who want to not believe have plenty of possible reasons to fuel their lack of faith in more than one religion.

The God Helmet is an experimental apparatus originally called the Koren helmet after its inventor Stanley Koren. It was developed by Koren and neuroscientist Michael Persinger to study creativity, religious experience and the effects of subtle stimulation of the temporal lobes. Reports by participants of a "sensed presence" while wearing the God helmet brought public attention and resulted in several TV documentaries.The device has been used in Persinger's research in the field of neurotheology, the study of the neural correlations of religion and spirituality. The apparatus, placed on the head of an experimental subject, generates very weak fluctuating magnetic fields, that Persinger refers to as "complex." These fields are approximately as strong as those generated by a land line telephone handset or an ordinary hair dryer, but far weaker than that of an ordinary refrigerator magnet and approximately a million times weaker than transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Persinger reports that many subjects have reported "mystical experiences and altered states" while wearing the God Helmet. The foundations of his theory have been criticised in the scientific press, anecdotal reports by journalists, academics and documentarists have been mixed and several effects reported by Persinger have not yet been independently replicated. One attempt at replication published in the scientific literature reported a failure to reproduce Persinger's effects and the authors proposed that the suggestibility of participants, improper blinding of participants or idiosyncratic methodology could explain Persinger's results. Persinger argues that the replication was technically flawed, but the researchers have stood by their replication. More recently, other researchers have published a replication of one God Helmet experiment.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A similar form of brain stimulation research is known as "transcranial magnetic stimulation (tms)." While the God helmet has undetermined results, it uses very weak magnetic fields. TMS has been well research has have very well established results from brain stimulation with much stronger magnetic waves. On of the most interesting test I have hear of involved TMS where during the period of magnetic waves being focused on the subjects brain, the subject developed "savant" capabilities which ceased when TMS was stopped.

[JoeMo]

I think we were created with a built in "receiver" that can "hear" or sense God.  Some call it the conscience. 

I agree with the receiver part.  The conscience is just one "channel" on that receiver.  Many people feel that because they have not heard an audible vioce or experienced a major manifestation of the supernatural that they have never heard from God.  Some people think that if they don't have a prayer language that they are not baptized in the Spirit.

Sometimes I think that God speaks on the FM channel; but we only sisten to the AM channels.  Sometimes we hear God's voice in our heads and pass it off as imagination.  Sometimes we "think" we hear God's voice and it truly is just our imagination.  I wish I had a reliable way to distinguish between self-talk and God's voice!

[pnattmbtc]

Sometimes I think that God speaks on the FM channel; but we only listen to the AM channels.

Ha! Very nice. 

[pnattmbtc]

I agree with the receiver part.  The conscience is just one "channel" on that receiver.  Many people feel that because they have not heard an audible vioce or experienced a major manifestation of the supernatural that they have never heard from God.  Some people think that if they don't have a prayer language that they are not baptized in the Spirit.

Sometimes I think that God speaks on the FM channel; but we only sisten to the AM channels.  Sometimes we hear God's voice in our heads and pass it off as imagination.  Sometimes we "think" we hear God's voice and it truly is just our imagination.  I wish I had a reliable way to distinguish between self-talk and God's voice!

Regarding the last sentence, I don't think this is possible.  We always filter things through our paradigm/belief system; not sure what the correct term would be from philosophy.  So we never really hear God in an undiluted way.

From the Spirit of Prophecy, there is a statement something like that in Scripture God is not on trial either in regards to logic or rhetoric, which makes perfect sense to me.  Only Jesus Christ had an "undiluted" view, and undistorted paradigm from which to understand God.

Jesus Christ is amazing!  As an example of the power of an undiluted view (I just coined this phrase; hopefully it's clear), consider that Jesus said, "I do the things I see my Father do" and "I speak the things I hear My Father speak."  Where did He see and hear these things?  From Scripture.  So the beautiful picture of God's character which we see presented by Jesus Christ is based on how Jesus Christ read Scripture.  This blows my mind every time I think of it!  No one has every read the Scriptures like Jesus did!  Nobody has seen such a beautiful picture of God in Scripture.

As I think of this, this humbles me.  I recognize that there is a lot of me in the things I think and perceive, which is, of course, inevitable, and not completely undesirable (as God wants to keep our individuality in tact), but recognizing the limitations of my paradigm and understanding at least lets me be aware that there is a lot "out there" that I'm not getting, and makes me desire to be able to read Scripture like Jesus did.