November 22, 2005
Payforaprayer.com
First, before I get going.. a brief warning to my readers who don’t know much about me. This will be a religious post. The purpose of my blog is to write up whatever I please… If you don’t like religious stuff then just skip it, or read it and ask my if you have any questions about what or why I wrote it.

I’m surprised the payforaprayer.com domain is not taken. By some catholic. Who wants to charge people for praying for them or someone else.
OK, I hope this post doesn’t offend anyone… but I’m going to rant a little bit about the Catholic church and how surprised (or not surprised?) I am about something.
Last Sunday there was a mass for my dead Uncle. He died about 6 months ago or so, and the mass marks the "end of mourning" when my Aunt is now allowed to start wearing colors besides black. I’m not sure exactly how it all works, but I was told this mass is the public "showing" that the mourning period is over.
Anyway, so we all went to this mass. Even my communist Aunt and Uncle went. Of course, he sat in the back row and I’m pretty sure I saw kleenex in his ears.. but he was there. That’s how important this mass apparently is. It’s a family thing, so all the immediate family and many of the extended were there.
Great. So what has that to do with payforaprayer.com?
Well, we (Cara and I) were told that this mass was for our dead Uncle. Of course, we were expecting some kind of prayer to happen or some ceremony or whatever. Sure enough, during the "we remember [insert name here] in prayer" part of the Mass the Priest mentioned my Uncle’s name. (It was in French, so I have no idea what he actually said, but I know it was during the prayer part, as I’ve been to many many catholic masses and they’re pretty much all the same regardless of the language.)
After the mass, we were back at my Aunt and Uncle’s for lunch and chatting about the mass. I don’t remember how the subject came up, but we started talking about money and giving to the church. Oh ya, my Aunt asked if we gave anything for the offering basket. Before we could really go much further in the discussion, my Uncle mentioned that the priest was PAID to mention my dead Uncle’s name in his prayer.
Paid.
Yup. As in my Aunt (the grieving one) had to PAY the Priest to put in a good word to God for her dead husband during his prayer.
Amazing. I have a really hard time holding back my tongue against a religion that requires PAYMENT to a Priest for a prayer.
While I realize that for most people this "Mass stuff "is pretty much just "tradition".. it saddens me even further that none of my family here know they can simply talk to God themselves. No need for a priest. No need to pay a priest. According to the Bible, God sent his son Jesus to earth so that he would die for us… and it was that action that restored our previously broken relationship with God. Thus, we can now simply talk directly to God and he will hear us, since his son Jesus stands "in the gap" between us (sinful people) and God (sinless). Jesus even went one step further and modeled "The Lords Prayer" for us, as a guide on how to pray.
There is no need to pray to Mary. Or to St. Martin. And no need for payment to any Priest to pray on our behalf.
My relatives tell me that the priests charge a fee, because they need to make enough money to eat. To them, it’s basically just a business transaction - nothing religious.
I guess I’m not Corsican enough yet, because I’m not able to just look at the catholic church, shake my head, and then move on with my day. No. The Corsican people need to know the truth about God, not just the traditions of a church.
And now, back to our regularily scheduled blogging.
No, my transformer isn’t here yet. My software beta testing is going very well - only a few big bugs found and lots of little ones. I’ve been keeping some pretty long hours, and getting a bit run down.. but there’s only one big problem left and then I think it’s ready for release. And then hiring translators, and then redoing the website, and then the order system, and then the integration of my credit card merchant account, and then I’ll start adding on all the other features people have been suggesting… phew!
My Aunt suggested that I should spend a bit of time outside each day. "Maybe getting firewood", she says.

We have a nifty fireplace here that actually is designed for heating the place. The temp is finally getting a bit chilly, so I think I’ll maybe go find some wood and see about making some fire. I feel so rustic, living in a place that uses WOOD for heating. Sheesh, do I have a city-boy’s heart or what?
I tried to explain that in our house in Vancouver there is a wood fireplace, but it’s for decoration. You can’t really use it for heat. It’s for those little logs you buy at the gas station where you light the packaging and it burns in 2 hours and makes a nice cozy little ’show’ fire. I think they might think we’re a little nuts.
Actually, they were quite surprised. My cousin was somewhat shocked, in fact. He told me that the normal image of a Canadian is someone who wears a lumber jacket, heats his house with fire, has sled dogs, and raises beavers for meat. Oh ya, and we all hunt cariboo, elk, and moose.
That’s ok. Before I got to France I thought they were all nuts. Now I see it’s only a few of them. So it’s only fair we each have our own stereotypes.
heh.
Hey, if you’re read this far yippee! Here’s your prize. Let me know, by posting a comment, what you’d like me to write about.
And Ros, I haven’t forgotten about you. I’ll reply to your email about adsl soon! I promise!
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Ok,
First of all I’m amazed that I actually read all that. (Ok I admit it took me 3 sittings to get through all of it)
Good thoughts Henri, I agree with ya. Have a good week.
You move to Corsica and become C.S.Lewis? Something in the water?
:-)
Ok, since you asked, I would like to hear about your thoughts on the professional pastor model in the protestant/evangelical church. Is it not similar in some regards to the way the Catholic church does it? And isn’t it abrogating our responsibilities as beleivers to tend to the poor and to each other, to serve each other?
We still miss you, but oddly i think we feel closer to you guys than ever.
Oh Jeff, you and the long blog postings. It’s a real struggle for you, hey? :)
I don’t understand the Catholic church much, but I was thinking the same thing as David about the salaried pastors in the evangelical church. It’s the same but not the same. More indirect, I guess. But then, in Galatians, I believe it is, there is a verse about paying the one who teaches you. So, there you go. I have no idea. Corrie would know better how to say what he’s thinking about this stuff. I’m just a rambler and a mumbler… and a wanderer. I’m the wanderer.. I wander ’round, ’round, ’round, ’round.
We heat our house primarily with wood. You should take a look at my blog www.empyr.blogspot.com for tips. :) I like woodheating. It’s a softer heat than electric. And, for the record, I think you are used to a chilly house from keeping your house so COLD in Canada. For pete’s sake! Put the heat on! hehe
Oh? I agree with your aunt. Get outside once a day. It will do you good. :)
Good questions.
First, I think the major difference between the “pay for a prayer” system and “pay your pastor’s salary” is exactly that.
The “pay for a prayer” approach of getting paid is based on FEAR (of having your loved one suffer extra time in pergatory) and MISUNDERSTANDING of the truth (that Christ died in our place and that we are now able to “speak” with God directly).
The idea that you must pay your priest/pastor in order for them to pray, on your behalf, for someone you love, so that that loved one won’t spend as much time in pergatory, is just wrong. It’s wrong first of all because the bible does not mention pergatory, which is an antiquated method the catholic church used (and still uses) to invoke fear in the living. It’s wrong second of all, because the bible specifically states that ANYONE is able to pray to God and he will hear, as long as we do so “through” Jesus Christ - the person who removed the sin-based division between us and God.
I could go on.. but my blog isn’t yet my forum.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of the “pay your pastor’s salary” method that is standard in evangelical/protestant church’s. But I *do* feel it’s a better system then “pay for a prayer”.
I’m one of those few people who believes that “tithing”, as it’s defined in the bible is basically giving 10% of my income (whatever form that takes — money or otherwise, ie: time), to God.. in whatever form *that* takes. I don’t think it’s *required* that I tithe to a “church”. i don’t think it’s wrong, nor do I think it’s bad. But I don’t think it’s *required*. I *DO* believe that tithing is required.
I actually believe that as “spriritually alive” people (having been previously dead in spirit, before being “born again” by God’s spirit), we have the holy spirit within us to intuit to our own spirit what we should “do” with our tithe. Thus, if we listen and act on what the holy spirit is “telling” our own spirit, we are always going to be tithing exactly to what and where it is needed.
That being said, I think it’s certainly easier to just give 10% to your church and be done with it. No thinking required. No dwelling on what the holy spirit is trying to say to your spirit is needed. Easy. No muss no fuss, and you are still following the biblical directive to tithe.
In short, to answer the question, I think the “pay for a prayer” is wrong because it knowingly deceives people. “Paying for your pastor’s salary” is a different issue altogether so it can’t really be compared. If a pastor says you are going to hell because you don’t pay his salary (tithe), then I think that’s wrong and is the *same* as “paying for a prayer”.
Hope that all made sense.
:)
>> And isn’t it abrogating our responsibilities as
>> beleivers to tend to the poor and to each other, to
>> serve each other?
No, it’s not. If you tithe based on the intuition of the holy spirit and what he is telling your own spirit, then that is your *sole* responsibility. For us to judge how another person tithes is wrong. Only God is able to be that judge, since we can only “see” what is worldly and not what is happening in the spirit of the tither.
I do believe, however, that the holy spirit will never conflict with the word of god (the bible). Thus, if someone “tithes” to some wacko church, person or organization that believes in sometihng anti-biblical.. you can pretty much say that the tither is listening to something besides the holy spirit. After all, the holy spirit, god, and the word/bible are *one*.
I’m not sure there is any real direct link between the directive to tithe and our “responsibilities as beleivers to tend to the poor and to each other, to serve each other?” The two don’t necessarily go hand in hand, although we should certainly strive to do both.
:)
Henri,
What happened to you? I agree with David, move to corsica and transform into CS Lewis…… Who would have though, Our Henri, the scholar!
It’s great to hear you debate….I love it! BTW: I agree with almost everything you’ve said. I say almost because I didn’t read every word in detail and dwell on what was said, so I’m simply leaving room as a disclaimer that I might disagree with something once read in detail.
Wow. Serves me right for just making questions up out of thin air. Some good stuff in here for discussion though. I am particularily intrigued with how the Christian church is very choosy about which laws it keeps and upholds with vigor and those it does not. I’d say we’re inconsistent at best. The tithe for example - I don’t believe there is any NT equivalent or even a NT mandate to tithe. I believe Jesus turns it all on it’s head and pushes us to give everything.
I am also interested in hearing more about your views on the infallibility of scripture - I sometimes wonder if we claim more for the Bible in this area than it claims for itself. Not to take away from it’s position as the word of God but I think we’ve made a pretty shaky theology out of the whole thing - inspiration, verbal inerrancy, canon - it’s all a little dodgy and given that much of it came out of a reactionary move during the reformation I’d say it’s a little suspicious. :-)
You know Corsica would be an AWESOME place to start a cult.
Hey Henri,
Not really wanting to get all involved in your lovely debate/discussion/rant/whateverthehellitis. I just want to say HI. Love ya!
ok… skiping the bible debate… heat your house with lighter-filled tennis balls.
(hmm - one thinks to himself - what could this mean??? Henri posts… and defends some personally held views (RIGHT OUT THERE IN PUBLIC AND EVERYTHING)! Lots of time for introspection maybe?!? Getting cabin/island fever?!? God asking you to DO something about it?!?)
>> - I don’t believe there is any NT equivalent or
>> even a NT mandate to tithe. I believe Jesus turns >> it all on it’s head and pushes us to give everything.
In fact, I’d take this one step further and say that we are directed to listen to the holy spirit. Similarily to smoking, drinking, or whatever “gray” issue is discussed… if you want to know what is “right” then listen to what the holy spirit is telling your own spirit.
That is the truth within us, in the form of conviction by the holy spirit.
The problem is when somone takes something they are convicted of and then applies that to EVERYONE as a requirement for salvation. That’s just not right.
It was made clear to Peter, that what he believed previously as truth was not so, when he had the vision of eating “unclean” animals. He was convicted in his spirit that preaching to the “unclean” was not A Bad Thing.
A bit of a poor analogy, but sufficient. My point is that it is the Holy Spirit, active and alive in us, that intuits to our own spirit what is right, in the form of conviction. Our sole obligation in this life is to listen to that conviction and “remove it” by acting on it. Thus, we become “spirit led” by following our spirit, which intuits with God’s spirit within us (holy spirit)…
But I digress.. what was the question again? :)
>> I am also interested in hearing more about your
>> views on the infallibility of scripture
Oh ya.. that’s why I was writing about the holy spirit and it’s relationship to our own spirit. Stick with me.. this’ll be a bit long, but my point will draw itself together at the end.
Here’s how I believe it all works. Prove me wrong. I’ll start from the beginning, but I’m sure to leave some out, as I’m just typing without correction here. One day I’ll write a “what I believe” essay. I’m sure you’ll enjoy that.
1) Adam received the breath of life from God, at creation. That is, he was created with a body, soul, and SPIRIT. What distinguished him from the animals and the angels is his spirit that was directly from god. It allowed him to commune with god on a different “level” then the angels and other created beings. It’s what sets us apart.. besides our physical body, etc.
Notice here I’m NOT arguing against or for creation OR evolution. If you’d like my opinion on that, ask me. I have a lot of thoughts on the subject too.. a bit different then most. ;)
“Let us make man in OUR OWN IMAGE”. That’s what this means. Let’s give man our spirit. The breath of life is our spirit.
2) Adam also had a soul. And a body. His soul was “subject” to his spirit. I view the difference between body, soul, and spirit like this:
Body is our connection with our physical reality. The five senses of our body. Subject to the laws of physics - space and time.
Spirit is our direct link with God and what is of God. It is part of the “spiritual” reality in which God inhabits. We (humans) are unique in that we are the only “species” to have a spirit.
Soul is the “bridge” or “connection” between our body and our spirit. It is the emotions, intellect, sense of “self”, our character, etc.
The relatinship between body, soul, and spirit is simple:
The spirit receives instruction from god, the soul interprets/listens to it and “makes sense of it”, and our body performs the action for it.
3) We are born with a “dead spirit”. That is, when “adam” sinned, it resulted in the death of our spirit.. that is the “death” spoken of in the bible. We become seperated from God, in that our spirit was no longer able to communicate with him directly since we now had sin.
4) As a result of our dead spirit, our SOUL or our BODY now becomes the dominate decision maker.
Thus, instead of receiving instruction/direction from our spirit, we receive instrucion from our body (I want sex - go get some!) or our soul (I was to think endlessly about sometihng because I am a “thinker”, or I am ruled by my emotions, etc.)
The fact is that we are born MISSING a critical component of what is necessary for a relationship with God.
If you read CS Lewis, you’d say this is the “God shaped hole” we’re trying to fill.
Make sense so far?
We are thus born “into” sin, and have no relationship with God.
5) God, seeing the state we are in, sent his son Jesus to die a sinless death, in order to “fix” the problem of our dead spirit keeping us from God. I don’t pretent to “know” how it all works, but I do believe I understand.
Jesus was killed. But since he was sinless, his death was a sacrifice. A necessary doing, in order that the PRICE for our own sin could be paid. He *is* (not was) our substitute in place of our own death. It was HIS SPIRIT that died, not just his body.
Ok, I know some will disagree. On what do I make this claim?
“Father, why have you forsaken me?”
Those words would NOT have been spoken by someone who was in CONSTANT communion with God, as Jesus was throughout his entire time on earth, since he was the ONE person (besides adam/eve) who was born with an alive spirit.
Thus, Jesus had a living spirit in him.. and THAT is what died on the cross, in our place, as a substitute for our own spiritual death.
So. Jesus died, so that we no longer have to. As a result, we simply declare Jesus to be our substitute, and realize that HE died on that cross, in our place, so that our spirit could be made alive again. The “penalty” of sin (death - our spirit’s seperation from God) is paid.
6) In order to “reconcile” our spirit to God, we simply must believe that the action Jesus did was for us. We simply accept that gift, and immediately our spirit will be made alive again, because we take the substitute death of Jesus as our own. So he *literallly* suffered the death of his spirit so that we would not have to.
Thus, our spirit can be made “alive” again and our communion with God can be “restored”, simply by believing in the substitionary death of Jesus.
This is what is called being “born again”. You see.. your spirit is “reborn”. Once again, God gives you life in your spirit.
7) So now, as “born again” “believers”, we have an active spirit. Now what? This is where it gets complicated and the “trinity” mystery is in play.
The Holy Spirit is able to dwell IN OUR SPIRIT. Notice that they are NOT the same thing.
Your spirit is YOUR spirit. It is YOUR gift from God. It is NOT the holy spirit.
But you can invite the holy spirit to dwell within your spirit.
Thus, you are basically “giving” your spirit to the holy spirit. The idea here is that your spirit will be subject to the Holy Spirit… and thus you will be able to listen directly to the Holy Spirit.. which the bible tells us is part of the trinity. God himself, in a way. The spirit of God.
So, our spirit listens to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit “intuits” to our spirit, and then our soul listens to our spirit/holy spirit.. and commands our body to take action.
That’s how it is SUPPOSED to be, and how I believe it will be one day. But for now, we are not perfect, and since we still live in a sinful world, it is VERY VERY hard to listen to the “still small voice” of the holy spirit, and to differentiate between THAT.. and the other things that are “speaking to us” and influencing us, wether they be our own minds (soul), our bodies, our emotions (soul), or outside influence such as the devil, demons, or other people.
But… here’s where I make my point and draw all this together. sortof.
As a born again spirit filled believer, I have the truth inside me, in the form of the holy spirit. The holy spirit will ALWAYS be in perfect accordance with God and his will.
The bible, was written by people. I do not believe that it is “infallible” in the sense that it is totally complete. I don’t think that the bible is necessarily “wrong” because it was written by people.. but I *DO* believe that we should make the scripture SUBJECT to the holy spirit within us.
That is, when we read the scripture, we should not do so with our MIND (our soul), but with our SPIRIT. Only in this way, will we be able to truly understand (with our spirit) and thus comprehend (with our mind/soul) what is being said. In some cases, we may not understand, but we may comprehend. (ie: We know what, but not why.)
I believe all scripture is subject to the true holy spirit within us.
But I also think that it is VERY VERY difficult to truly be able to listen and hear the holy spirit within us, especially as infant christians.
Thus.. is scripture “infallible”. No - not by my definition. Is it “complete”? No. Is it “right”? I don’t know.
All I do know is that when you or I read the scripture, we MUST do so with the active, living spirit of god inside of us. Only then will we be able to hear the word of God that is the scripture.
After all, only spirit can commune with spirit. John says the word (bible) *is* God, and thus, we are useless to read/understand it with our minds. It is our SPIRIT that “gets it”, and then our mind (soul) that follows, in order that we can tell our body what to do. (Remember, the soul is the “in between” between our spirit and our body.)
Phew.. that was a long one. Hope you made it!
:)
To answer the “why the heck is Henri posting this stuff” questions…
.. I’ve always had it in me. I just never really openly talked about it, because:
1) I’m the kind of guy that doesn’t like to talk about this stuff unless I’ve figured out reasonable explaination for what I believe and why I believe it. Now I’m at that point, and like everything else in my life… I’ll talk openly and often about the things that are “real”.
2) Well, that’s basically it. Basically, I’ve finally answered a lot of the big questions I’ve been asking for many many years. :) I know what I believe, why I believe it, and have a good balance of “faith and reason”.
Most of what I believe is backed by more then just “faith”. Most of it is backed by either real science, history, or evidential experience.
I’m not the kind of guy who believe just because I was raised that way, or because it’s cool.
I believe what I believe, because I *know* it to be the truth. Not the truth for “me”, but The Truth.
:)
Wow. Very thorough. Going to have to digest some of this. Not sure I agree with it all, but then it’s mostly in the details. I think.
I am intrigued by the conclusion you draw that when John wrote the word was God that he meant the Bible. Seems pretty clear he is talking about Jesus, and that the word (logos) was in reference not at all to the bible but to the greek concept. So how do you make the connection?
>> Seems pretty clear he is talking about Jesus, and
>> that the word (logos) was in reference not at all
>> to the bible but to the greek concept. So how do
>> you make the connection?
Well, consider that when he wrote the book there was no word for “bible”, thus he didn’t really have the option of including “bible” in his text. :)
In order to explain what I meant I must be clear that when I mean “Bible” and “word”, I mean the texts, as well as the whole of Jesus and his life and actions. I don’t see the two as being much different. One supposedly documents the other, etc. I’m not sure if the words are accurate or not, but it is pointless to even debate, because… my point wasn’t that the bible IS the word (jesus), but more that when we read the bible we need to do so with our spirit and not just our soul (mind).
Thus, if we read the bible and it is “agreed” with our spirit as being correct.. then it *is* the Word/Jesus that is speaking to us.
Hope that makes more sense. I admit I didn’t write that out too clearly.
A lot of the things I wrote above have a ton of little details that form the “big picture”. Sometimes without the little details, my “big picture” is not going to appear correct.
Greetings my Reformed Quaker friend!
On paying for prayer:
The traditional faiths like Catholics and Orthodox believe that one cannot reach God unless one has an intermediary. They pay for icons, they pay for rosaries, candles, and they pay for prayers. Being an intermediary between God and man is a service that the traditional faiths provide. They do this justifiably because of their understanding of the theology of priesthood, which pre-Martin Luther meant that only a clergy could really pray on your behalf. You can talk to a saint, or to Mary, or to the priest, but not to God. What looks like a stupid tradition to you is actually a defendable theology. You may not agree with it, but it’s quite real to the priest who believes he is actually taking to God on behalf of those who can’t. This was one of the theological pillars that Martin Luther kicked at while sparking the secularization of Europe. Protestant priests and pastors still need to eat, so we pay them for their work, which is, ironically, to help us get closer to God. Not a huge difference.
Concerning the Holy Spirit:
I like what you write about being HS led. You sound like a Quaker friend of mine. They sit in a room for hours, meditating until they hear from the HS what to do or what to say. It’s kinda cool actually.
Concerning scripture:
I’m gonna have to side with David on John’s “word of God” refering to Jesus. Here’s one for you… when God speaks, his word is creative, it always has been. He says darkness, and it is. He speaks water, and it is. What if Jesus was the result of God speaking his own name into the physical world? Jesus is LITERALLY, the WORD of God. God speaks “God”, and Jesus suddenly exists.
BTW, if the scripture isn’t infallible, how do you know anything you believe about tithing, Jesus or the Holy Spirit is true? You rightly place a lot of authority behind your thoughts in those areas. You seem to place a lot of authority behind the parts of scripture you like, but are not willing to give authority to the parts you don’t like. Any particular reason? I do the same, I know my reason…
It seems to me what you are trying to say is that the Bible and the HS are incomplete without the other. The Bible needs the HS to be understandable, and the HS needs the Bible to communicate. Is that close?
Boojah brother.
Feet first.
-Corrie
>> It seems to me what you are trying to say is that
>> the Bible and the HS are incomplete without the
>> other. The Bible needs the HS to be understandable,
>> and the HS needs the Bible to communicate. Is that close?
Yes, that is exactly what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say. They are intertwined. Certainly the bible needs the HS to be understood, since it is spirit-food. But I’m not sure the HS “needs” the bible to communicate, although it certainly helps!
>> if the scripture isn’t infallible, how do you know
>> anything you believe about tithing, Jesus or the
>> Holy Spirit is true?
In a nutshell, I do not believe the bible to be “infallible”, in the sense we are talking about. I believe it is “subject” to the interpretation and understanding given to us by the holy spirit.
>> You seem to place a lot of authority behind the
>> parts of scripture you like, but are not willing to
>> give authority to the parts you don’t like. Any
>> particular reason?
I give full authority to whatever the HS is showing me is truth, regardless of how it makes me feel or if I like or don’t like it.
However, that’s often hard to do, if not often impossible, because my own soulical reasoning and intellect get in the way. (I think to much.)
I don’t care what it is.. if the holy spirit reveals something to me or deepens my understanding about something, then it is the WORD of god to me. Thus, it has full authority and I will be convicted by the HS my own spirit until I eventually obey, or squash the HS.
I will admit, however, that I believe the HS works in different ways for everyone. For example, he may convict me of drinking.. and thus, for *me* it is a sin to drink because I have been convicted of it and “told” to stop. (Purely not true, but just as an example..)
The problem is if I were to take that “truth” that has been revealed to ME and caused ME conviction.. and then apply it to everyone else as if the holy spirit was convicting *them*. That’s how we wind up with crazy “rules” and legalism that is not based in scripture.
Also, there are of course “tests” to see if what you’re being convicted of is from the HS or something else (your own mind/soul, or externally). For example, I think that we can look to scripture for support/affirmation/clarification. I have never seen an example of what I feel is true HS given revolution or conviction that directly contradicted the bible.
Hey Henri - Thanks for this posting. I love this stuff, and I think I’ll have to get a blog of my own :)
You raise a point,
> 5) God, seeing the state we are in, sent his son
> Jesus to die a sinless death, in order to “fix” the
> problem of our dead spirit keeping us from God. I
> don’t pretent to “know” how it all works, but I do
> believe I understand.
I have an illustration that makes sense (at least to me):
First of all, a few laws: 1) God is above his creation (outside of time/space, and so can see and act in all of time at once). 2) Death is the consequence of sin.
When Jesus died (he had to - the life is in the blood, and there was no more blood left in him) he was without sin. Because of rule 2 above, this caused a singularity in the universe (what you get when you divide by 0 — I’m a physics guy:)) You can’t be dead without sin, and Jesus doesn’t have any, but he’s dead.
In order to solve this problem, Jesus needed some sin, and so God swept up through the whole of time, and collected all the sin that was loose (wasn’t stubbornly held on to) and dumped it on Jesus. Now Jesus could legally be dead - and he took the sin into hell. Of course, since it was not his own sin, it wasn’t attached to him, and he could leave it there.
By believing in Jesus, and repenting of our sins, we “release” the sin for the great collection, and can be cleansed of it. Those who refuse to accept the substitutionary death of Jesus can’t be forgiven, because they never “released” the sin to Jesus.
>
On another note, I’m gaining a much broader idea of what is meant by “Church”. We grew up thinking it was what happened on sunday morning - but I’m increasingly believing that “church” consists largely of things like this very blog discussion. So thanks Hank.
Dave C.
You wrote:
“In a nutshell, I do not believe the bible to be “infallible”, in the sense we are talking about. I believe it is “subject” to the interpretation and understanding given to us by the holy spirit.”
and then you write, “I have never seen an example of what I feel is true HS given revolution or conviction that directly contradicted the bible.”
Actually, Henri, I think we’re on the same page. I think the word your looking for is “literal”, not “infallible”. As you’ve said, and I agree, there’s never been a case where the true HS has contradicted scripture, so the infallibility of the Bible is still in tact. However, and I agree with you here as well, the “literal” interpretation of the Bible is subject to serious contradictions. For instance, When Jesus said that it is better to gouge out your eye and enter heaven sans eye than have your whole body burn in the pit of flames, I don’t think literally we are to gouge our eyes out at the fist sign of topless Corsicans running about. Yet we do take the “pit of flames” thing oddly literally in our dogma of hell. Same sentence. The HS can help us to sort out what is literal, what is alegorical, and what is cultural.
If this is where you are, can-I-getta “hell yeah!”?
my head hurts.
>> If this is where you are, can-I-getta “hell yeah!”?
Hell yeah! Exactly what I am thinking. One day I’ll learn to write as well as you, my master.
>> I have an illustration that makes sense (at least to me):
Very interesting illustration, Dave! I’ve often thought about that God isn’t bound by our time-frame, and how one moment on the cross can thus literally be like “all” moments on the cross… so in fact Jesus is “always” dying for us.
But I’ve never thought about his literal blood actually being the life, etc. That’s an interesting concept.
Also, I like the divide by 0 comment.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once. Geek joke, but finally I found someone who will “get it”.
Q. What happens when God divides by zero?
A. A big bang.
:) heh. Nobody else I know will laugh at this, but I think you might.
And I’ve never thought about Jesus dying Body and SPIRIT. - but that makes sense too.
Life in blood - is the reason why even in the New Testament, we are not supposed to eat blood - you’ll find the original reference somewhere in Moses’ dietary laws.
And yes - I did laugh!
Dave C.