GandalfTheWise

Welcome to the site. I'm sure you'll find others (like @LadyMountaineer) who can share their experiences. As a note, this is the welcome part of the forum which not everyone one reads. There is a prayer request section as well as an advice/ask-questions section which draws more readers who are more gifted in responding to those threads.

I should have realized something sooner and unfortunately contributed to decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this thread because I didn't. As near as I can tell, there are effectively three (or maybe more) definitions of "free will" being used by people on this site. Free will in a Pelagian sense which is that humans are capable of coming to God on their own without His help. Free will in an Arminian sense which is that prevenient grace allows humans to freely accept or reject God's offer of salvation through Christ. Free will in a Calvinist sense which in essence is limited in scope and does not affect God's election or reprobation of particular individuals. My sense is theologians split hairs trying to carefully define the various uses various Christian groups make of the basic term free will adding adjectives such as compatible and non-compatible (which is as I understand is basically a reflection of the major Arminian/Calvinist difference of whether or not all choices are compatible with divine decree). However, as a practical matter, most Christians just use the term free will as their church or denomination uses it (which is usually some variation of either the Arminian or Calvinist definition) because they've been told that is what the term "free will" really means. That indeed is the de facto state this forum will be in because posters will just show up here using the particular definition of free will that they've been taught. Most are not aware of the different definitions being used. This of course begs the question of what the best course of action to deal with this state of affairs is to improve our communication and reduce misunderstandings, but that is for another thread. I apologize to all on here for not recognizing this sooner and contributing to a level of unhelpful noise on this thread. I was taking some comments as attacks and misrepresentations of fellow Christians. My understanding now is that they were not meant as such, but due to lack of obvious (at least to me) statement that a Pelagian definition of free will was being exclusively used rather than the more common Arminian or Calvinist ones used by most posters, I read into the statements something that was not intended.

Wowzers... The arminians I've interacted with over my life are born again Christians and would never deny the need to born again as part of salvation. I've been a Christian since the mid 70s and have spent decades worth of time in both arminian and calvinist ministries and churches. I've known hundreds of Christians in various settings and to various degrees of both viewpoints. I've not heard one deny the need for being born again. I've known some people in mainline churches that are essentially agnostic, atheist, or deist in outlook and join churches for more social and emotional reasons. Some hold to the doctrinal statements of their denomination to some degree and in some likely redefined sense they are comfortable with. In that sense, I could say I've known both arminians and calvinists who would deny the need to be born again.

My observation is that many Christians use the term "free will" in the sense of "freed will" or a similar sense which requires God's intervention. One can debate the accuracy and potential ambiguity of that usage. However, I think it prudent to take care when decrying free will assuming a Pelagian definition that it will be understood as that by all when there will be those reading the statements who commonly use a different usage. One can of course then drop into a mode of arguing that everyone should adopt a common usage and which one is better or correct, but that won't change common usage different groups use. The typical arminian emphasis in use of the term free will that I've commonly observed is to emphasize the universal offering of salvation to all through Christ (with some who will reject that offer) in what is ultimately a denial of reprobation.

Another set of music I've run across that I like is Christian music set to various ethnic styles. As part of learning Spanish, I found a number of native Spanish songs of various genres that I've really liked. Here's a few of the YT titles of songs I like. GRUPO FOLKLORICO CRISTIANO ISRAEL ALELUYA Tino Picuasi - El Shaddai Jara Bolivia - El amor de Dios - Tinku Fiel - Funky - Indestructible 2015 Que huyan los fantasmas - Jesus Adrian Romero // Video Oficial Redimi2 - Viviré (Video de Letras) ft. Evan Craft

It's an interesting story how I first ran across him. Back in the early 80s, I found a guitar method book by him at a garage sale. Well before the days of the Internet so I never heard any of his music. The method book itself focused on holding very complicated chords and practicing various rhythms on arpeggios. I gave up pretty quickly because I couldn't contort my hands enough to hold most of them. The ones I could hold sounded great. I ended up putting that book away. A good 15 years later, I ran across the lesson book and looked him up on YouTube out of curiosity.

One of the primary characteristics of Arminian belief is a belief in free will. This seems to be a generally accepted state of affairs. Quoting from page 927 of the 2nd Edition of Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson: "The views of Arminius are quite clear and can be readily summarized. God's first absolute decree regarding salvation was not the assignment of certain individuals to eternal life and others to damnation, but the appointment of his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Savior of the human race. Second, God decreed that all who repent and believe shall be saved. In addition, God has granted to all persons sufficient grace to enable them to believe. They freely believe or disbelieve on their own. God does not believe for us or compel us to believe. Finally, God predestines those who he foreknows will believe." In the next paragraph, "In the eighteenth century, John Wesley popularized Arminianism. In fact, for many years he edited a magazine call The Arminian. While holding to the freedom of the will, Wesley went beyond Arminius by emphasizing the idea of prevenient or universal grace. This universal grace is the basis of any human good in the world. This prevenient grace also makes it possible for any person to accept the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ." Roger E. Olson (author of a number of books including Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Against Calvinism and Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) wrote a blog piece (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/11/calvinism-and-arminianism-compared-by-roger-e-olson/) contrasting arminianism and calvinism. Here is a quote from the piece. "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without “prevenient grace” (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. “A” is called “limited providence,” “B” is called “predestination by foreknowledge.” *As with Calvinism there are varieties of Arminianism that deviate slightly from above, but above is classical, historical, evangelical Arminianism as taught by Arminius, John Wesley, Charles Finney, C. S. Lewis, and Dallas Willard and all other classical, historical, evangelical Arminians." Irwin W. Reist's article JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL on pages 25-35 in Volume 7 - Spring - 1972 of the Wesleyan Theological Journal makes many observations about Wesley and his writings on a number of topics. Section V of this article lays out a fairly clear picture of what prevenient grace is. Here is one quote from Wesley in that article. "For allowing that all the souls of men are dead in sin by nature this excuses none, seeing there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural. It is more properly termed preventing grace. Everyone has sooner or later good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root. . . So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath." Here is a mixture of Reist's comments and a Wesley quote. [Formatting is poor here.] The second element in Wesley's concept of prevenient grace is the graciously enabled will of man. Free will is not natural to man as a remnant of the pre-fall state. "Natural free-will in the present state of mankind I do not understand. ~28 Free- will and liberty are matters of grace bestowed on all men. And although I have not an absolute power over my own mind, because of the corruption of my own nature; yet through the grace of God assisting me, I have a power to choose and do good, as well as evil. 29 I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which 'lightens every man that cometh into the world'. 30 Finally, here are some quotes from an article which is highly hostile to Arminians accusing them of teaching a heresy of free-will and a false gospel (with a form of calvinism being assumed to be the true gospel). https://cprc.co.uk/articles/johnwesley/ John Wesley, False Apostle of Free Will by Rev. Angus Stewart. The question is this: What was the gospel that Wesley preached? Was it the true gospel (with some weaknesses, perhaps) or was it “another gospel” “which is not another” (Gal. 1:6-7)? Tomkins’ book alone provides enough information to answer this question. Wesley even quotes Whitefield as saying that the two of them “preached two different gospels” (p. 94). Wesley’s gospel was the false gospel of salvation by the free will of the sinner. Free will, for all his talk of God’s grace, was the deciding factor in salvation. In loving free will, Wesley hated predestination calling it “blasphemy.” He declared, “It represents the most holy God as worse than the Devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust” (p. 78). However, the Canons of Dordt state that the “decree of election and reprobation” is “revealed in the Word of God” and “though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds wrest [it] to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls [it] affords unspeakable consolation” (I.6). Where does this leave Wesley? Not with the “holy and pious souls,” but with the “men of perverse, impure and unstable minds” who “wrest” the truth of predestination “to their own destruction.” In its “Conclusion,” the Synod of Dordt “warns calumniators to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them.” Wesley certainly belongs in this category for he is guilty of the sins that the “Conclusion” proceeds to enumerate: bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches [including the Church of England in which he lived and died] … distressing the consciences of the weak; and … labouring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. Remember that Wesley was not simply a church member but a church office-bearer and that his church’s creed (article 17 of the Thirty-Nine Articles) taught election. Moreover, he was a founder of societies (and eventually a denomination) and he saw himself as a restorer of primitive Christianity! If church teachers shall receive a greater judgment (James 3:1), where will this leave Wesley? A false apostle of free will. The bottom line is that there are many Christians in the Arminian and Wesleyan traditions that do believe in free will and a universal offer of salvation whereby anyone can be saved through Christ's atoning work.

I think I'm missing a reference to someone well known, or else I bear a striking resemblance to some remark.

(Just realized I'm getting off the trend of this thread. A quick aside here.) My main instruments are a Roland A90EX, an Epiphone Korean copy of a Strat, a Fender Twin (late 80s), and an Eko acoustic bass (made in Italy, which I got used back in the late 70s, and now to my surprise a collector's item) along with a 40+ year old small Gretsch bass amp. I've also got a banjo sitting around. I've got an old 3 function analog pedal sitting around somewhere. For the most part, my guitar tone was clean channel, distorted channel, and Twin spring reverb turned on or off. Despite all the sounds (which are now vintage I s'pose), I only use a handful on the A90 anymore. My musical style has leaned toward treating a song as a chord progression and theme to be built on within the limits of one's skills and influenced by one's "style" and "taste". For example, my hands naturally fit about a 6th on a keyboard with an octave being a stretch. My strength is rapid passages within a short range of notes. A weakness is spread out chords and flowing arpeggios because my hands simply can't reach that well. What's the old saying from one of the Clint Eastwood movies? "A man's got to know his limitations." I spend my time practicing and creating what I can be good at doing rather than trying to be good at what someone else is good at. I just simply find I feel the difference between "live" playing which changes and evolves each time a song is played versus having mastered a series of notes in sequence. I simply cannot make myself rehearse something to get it "right" but I can play with something time after time shaping and changing it. One of my favorite guitarists is Ralph Towner. I fit stuff I hear into 3 categories, "I can play that", "Give me some time, and I can play that", and "I'll never be able to play that". He's in the latter category for me. On YouTube, there are a handful of performances of his "Jamaica Stopover" from different stages in his career including one recently from in his late 70s. (Note a few with that label are covers by others.) Each time it is slightly different. It's like it is a living growing thing that has changed over the years in his hands. In contrast, I've heard a couple covers that were near perfect note by note from one of Towner's performances. They were well done and obviously much rehearsed, but they were too perfect and mechanical. When Towner plays it, it's like he is having fun and just playing around or goofing around with the guitar. When these other guitarists played it, it felt mechanical.

Overall, I think you and others are doing a solid job. We probably don't say it enough, but thank you for the time and effort. This site has a stream of Christians with different backgrounds and viewpoints arriving, many on different sides of issues that have split the body of Christ for centuries. Explicitly welcoming those of different views as equals is not common. Attempting to not merely grudgingly tolerate but to fully accept and feel comfortable with those from churches and denominations we've been taught are wrong in important ways is not easy, but I think a move of God which He will use the bless the entire Body of Christ. Lately, the worst I see here publicly is tame compared to what things were like a few years ago. The heaviest stuff I see now is in political threads. A few years ago, that was par for the course in many theological and spiritual threads and at times much worse. There was out and out bullying and gaslighting going on at times. I truly appreciate what I assume to be much forbearance, endurance, and patience on your part as I can imagine what type of PMs and behind the scenes stuff some might say in frustration and anger and sincere zeal.

One thing that needs to be said is that this OP creates a poor first impression due to misspelled words, grammatical errors, and run-on sentences. In addition, I missed the main point the first time I read it and wasted time writing a response due to my misunderstanding of what was being asked. That's partly on me for not reading carefully word by word. But it is partly due to the formatting and organization. I'd guess any literary agent or publisher seeing this would likely read a couple sentences, give up, and never bother with it again because they'd just assume they are seeing laziness or incompetence. Any discourse a potential writer has with others should be characterized by care and professionalism or there is a very real risk of burning bridges. To summarize what I'm understanding, the story premise is this. The protagonist's only interactions with the world for sustenance and survival is from demons because God has chosen not to use other methods. Further, the only moral course of action available to him is to refuse the means of survival from them. Part of the conflict in the story will be with the internal struggles the protagonist faces with his attitudes. My impression is that the possessed in this story's world are irredeemably possessed so that liberation and treating them with hope for change is not possible. I think a critical assumption is whether or not the protagonist has any hope or faith that the possessed can be liberated and saved. If the story direction is essentially that God will not do any form of deliverance and the protagonist cannot have hope or faith his family will be saved, this is in essence a hopeless fatalistic world where the protagonist knows his family is damned and that the only hope is resurrection after death. If the story direction is that the protagonist is hoping and having faith for the deliverance of those around him and his family, it becomes a story of patience, faith, hope, and endurance for the sake of others. The statement "how would he not be pridefull [sic] when not accepting the things knowing hes [sic] higher then [sic] them in the most humble way possible" is somewhat confusing in that it's not clear who he's better than. Is this in reference to demons or to the possessed? It also seems to almost imply his natural inclination is toward pridefulness which is virtually impossible to avoid. Also, it will depend on if the possessed are redeemable or irredeemable? If irredeemable, they become essentially indistinguishable from the demons. If redeemable, one of the foremost thoughts in the protagonist's heart and mind would be freeing his family and friends. As such, he would clearly see them as slaves to the demons needing liberation. His primary attitude toward them would be compassion and love with refusal to take sustenance being part of his ministry to free them. Pride would have little place in this. If he's facing certain death due to his refusal, I suppose one could read through various accounts of martyrs in church history to answer the question of how they avoided pridefulness in choosing in death over life.

I truly hope the intent of this was a form of cautionary jest to make a point and not to seriously imply that the moderators and many people on this site are likely to reject what Jesus might say and kick him out for it. As written, it does give the unfortunate appearance of assuming the worst about fellow Christians on this site. My observation is some say such things as a cautionary comment ("Let's be sure if Jesus came on here that we'd be humble enough to listen and change") and some say it because they believe a site like this consists of a tiny holy remnant (of which they are part) in a sea of compromised Christians (many of whom aren't really Christians). It is one thing for someone to become angry because they are rejecting the truth (for example the council covering their ears as they hustled Stephen out to be stoned). It is far different to be frustrated with a fellow Christian who is in essence proselytizing for a particular theological school of thought and claiming those who disagree are false teachers or in deep error. Comments such as "...freewillers, who don't have a clue, yet feel free to spout their ignorance dogmatically" appear to directly dismiss and disparage many solid Christians who do not hold calvinist theological opinions. I have the same feelings toward past comments I've read on past threads that called calvinists heretics. People who say such things and have those attitudes often stir up division and strife because they are attempting to force Christians to join their fight, choose their side, and to reject and look down on other Christians on the "wrong" side. Negative reactions are not proof of being correct nor proof people are rejecting truth. Negative reactions can sometimes be a response to damage being done to the body of Christ. Quoting scripture passages and then elevating the interpretation of those passages from one particular school of theological opinion to the level of objective fact frustrates other Christians because it more or less says that any disagreement is automatically subjective opinion to be rejected out of hand. It's one thing to correct things that the vast majority of solid Christians would have issue with (for example the JWs rejecting the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ). It's far different to choose one particular school of theological thought from among many held by different Christian groups (for example, picking one of the varieties of eschatological opinion) and to elevate it to a level of objective fact and to reject what any Christian who disagrees says as being an erroneous subjective opinion.

Not sure what to say to be of some tangible encouragement here...so just posting to let you know I was reading it.

Interesting question that I had to really think about. I've sat through 45 minute sermons that seemed like a few minutes and 15 minute sermons that dragged. I've sat through 45 minutes sermons that should have lasted 10 minutes. I've sat through loud active sermons that put me to sleep and through quiet detailed expositions that engaged me. I've sat through expositions that were little more than meaningless impressive sounding theological jargon or a thin pretty veneer covering blatant proselytizing. I've sat through series of personal stories that left me cold and others that were fascinating and inspiring testimonies of God's working. I've sat through some that felt like God talking straight to me and others where I was a disinterested third party sitting there. I've sat through sermon series on a particular topic that seemed to last forever and others that were great. I'd lay part of this on me and part of this on the speaker. What makes an effective fruitful delivery? The speaker is comfortable being who God made them to be and doesn't try to be their favorite preacher. The speaker is delivering God's words in His tone and His timing to the listeners. The speaker shares testimonies of what God has done in their or other's people lives that leave the listener excited about God and inspired that He can do such things in others' lives. The Holy Spirit communicates personal meaning to a large number of the listeners in various ways (be it the main thrust of the message or a single sentence or a "random" look or gesturing of a hand at a person at a particular moment). The speaker knows what they are talking about. The speaker has sincere motives. And finally, the speaker simply has a wealth of spiritual wisdom, discernment, and insight in which they see things clearly and can say things clearly and focus on what God wants done. What makes for ineffective delivery? Trying to act like someone else. Speaking way too long or way too short. Proselytizing and pointing out why they (and their church and denomination) are better than other Christians. Regurgitating or paraphrasing long sections from various reference books or other materials. Very distracting habits (such as one pastor I had who kept putting the wireless mic too close to his face which kept picking up smacking of his lips and tongue as he spoke). Having an ulterior motive (which can be sincere) other than speaking right now and today what God wants.

I like the gentleness of your approach on this. Bottom line is that when we close our eyes for the last time on earth, the next opening of them will be in the presence of the Lord. Be that instantaneous in the spiritual realm or after we've been physically resurrected, the net result from our perspective is the same. Whether we came into existence as eternal beings at the moment of conception or whether our eternal life springs from Christ through the Holy Spirit making us alive throughout eternity through Him, the net result is the same.

A few years ago there were a few vocal Christians on this site who believed the earth was flat. The primary reason was a literal interpretation of verses that referred to the 4 corners of the earth and similar things. For them, it is about biblical authority and perfection. If the bible is wrong about the shape of the earth, none of the bible can be trusted. This means any scientific "evidence" which contradicts biblical revelation has to be in error and any scientific "evidence" which confirms it had to be correct. For them, it is a matter of salvation because the authority of scripture itself is at stake. Anyone who disagrees is rejecting scripture. I didn't realize this at first and initially attempted to address this from the standpoint of physics. I also did not realize I should have been treading much more carefully and gently because I was running the risk of completely shaking someone's faith in scripture because if I disproved the earth being flat, what else of what they believed the Bible to say might be wrong. Here's a thread some time ago where I attempted (as a physicist) to deal with points a flat-earth believing Christian had been raising as proof of a flat earth. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/212853-examples-of-applied-physics/ I suspect some people espousing these views online are trolls, but my sense is that there are a Christians who sincerely hold them as a matter of faith in scripture. Now I approach this from the difference between having faith in scripture versus having faith in our own fallible interpretation of scripture and the difference between having trust and confidence in God Himself versus trying to eliminate all intellectual doubts about everything we think we are supposed to believe. This is a complete discussion and thread on it's own. If there are further questions, it'd probably be better to start a new thread though there are probably some old threads dealing with this. [End of sidetrack]

I think we need to carefully define what we mean by holiness in a practical way. Many Christians ultimately define holiness by various forms of legalism whereby external behaviors (not eating/drinking certain things, not doing certain activities, going to church enough hours per week, praying/reading Bible enough minutes or hours per day, not sinning in particular ways, putting in enough time doing ministry work, believing "correct" doctrine in labyrinthian detail etc.) define how separated we are from the world and toward God. In contrast, there is the resulting fruit of the Spirit as we are transformed as new creations in Christ which is in essence holy behavior by which our hearts and being is separated from the world. In other words, do we define holiness by how much of a series of rules we keep or as the natural change in our affections and behavior which comes from being changed by God as we spiritually grow and mature? I think that the enemy attacks the work of God that goes on in our hearts. "The thief comes to steal and kill and destroy." Anything that takes our attention away from God, causes us to step away from other Christians and be alone, and is unhealthy for us spiritually is probably encouraged by the enemy. My observation is that there are times seemingly holy things (which are external behaviors) can become idols we worship. I've seen Christians turn proclaiming "correct" doctrine and correcting "false" doctrine into an idol. I've seen Christians turn counting the number of hours per week they are in church (or doing other activities) into an idol. I've seen Christians turn a lot of good things into idols that occupy more of their attention than God Himself. I've done it myself and I think we all have to some degree in a lot of things which are good in themselves. I think there is a useful discussion to be had on what constitutes real holiness which is what the enemy really hates versus religiosity which distracts from real holiness. To what was asked in the OP, I'd answer by saying I see little point in discussing *why* Satan hates holiness. I think we can take it as a given that he does. I'm not sure that trying to dig into motives is helpful or healthy. I'm as curious about various things as the next person, but there are some things I keep my hands off of and my eyes away from because little is gained from digging deeper. I'll try to understand the motives of a human adversary because it makes communication and reconciliation possible. However, I don't think that applies here. I see little in the NT writings to suggest that the early church ever worried about this very much but simply took the existence of an irreconcilable spiritual enemy as a fact of life and worried more about *how* he attacked than *why*. Having said that, I think discussing what holiness really is (external vs. internal as I alluded to above) and how it can be attacked or undermined is a helpful discussion. I'm not convinced a discussion about why the enemy does things really gains us much. The Bible speaks little of this and pretty much anything we try to discuss on this topic will probably rapidly start to fall into the realm of conjecture. Though, I'm open to change my mind if I see some scriptural references or good expositions I've not see before. I don't see this discussion as wrong or a serious problem, but just potentially a distraction.

I don't know why, but I just love that line.

You didn't come across as severely negative but constructively reflective. I had in mind those who are not merely critical but actively hostile and campaigning against things they don't like. I know what you mean about "life" in a song. It's the main reason I've been out of music for close to a decade now. Practicing over and over to sound just like the CD seems pointless to me since you could just play the CD and accomplish the same thing. The last few churches I've been in have taken that approach and it's just too frustrating and stressful for me to deal with anymore. I spent about a decade or so as a worship leader and piano player in pentecostal churches so I got use to "flow" for lack of a better term where much of the playing was improvised and unscripted. I'd often end up playing a lot of unscripted background music during prayer times after services and the worship teams I was in just got used to playing along to various chord progressions for background music. I think a lot of this boils down to how the leader of the music program views music. Is a song a series of notes correctly played? Or is a song a melody sitting on a chord progression with each musician contributing a part commensurate with their skill level and musical tastes?

One of the biggest things God showed me many years ago is that He created every one of us to be, for lack of a better way to phrase it, epic in some unique way that shows His glory in a fallen world that is largely a spiritual battle zone. As that happens, people will see God in what we do and His Spirit will naturally flow through us to those around us. I now believe that our ministries are effective to the degree both that we grow spiritually and become more and more the person He created us to be. I spent the first 3 decades or so as a Christian largely being a workaholic for God defining myself by gifts, talents, and ministry involvement and defining my "success" by how much fruit was being born by those things and how little I was sinning. God sidelined me away from literally everything I was doing for a year or so, put me in front of a mirror, and I had no clue who I was looking at except that I'd gotten in the habit of thinking "Loser" to myself whenever I'd see myself in a real mirror. As I started to see myself really for the first time and live life as that person, I found that ministry started to naturally flow with little effort and life became more peaceful. My gifts and talents became tools to wield and use rather than what defined me. There's an enemy and world out there that screams "who do you think you are to be anything special" to shame us and stop us all from becoming the person God created us to be. I think this attack often starts as we are children and adolescents. Now, I'm not talking about becoming Christians and the transformation that occurs to all of us as new creations in Christ where fruit of the Spirit becomes more evident as we grow and mature, but rather that each of us is a unique creation and work of art in some way that reflects God's glory differently than others. I used to look at people and try to help them grow as Christians and to see their gifts and talents and callings to encourage them to do useful things and be busy serving God. Now I look at people and try to see who it is that God created them to be so they can flourish, learn to walk with God in the way He created them to, and so God's Spirit will naturally flow through them to the world around them. When you look at people and try to see who that epic person is that God created them to be to reflect His glory in the midst of a world in spiritual warfare, it becomes a lot easier to be patient with them, encourage them, help tend their wounds, and watch their back. Twenty years ago, I thought the Christian life was mostly "stop sinning and get busy serving God to show how thankful you are and how much you love Him". Now, my emphasis is "Figure out who God created you to be and learn to walk with Him as that person He made you to be."

Some nice thoughts expressed in this thread, many of which reflect my own feelings. I've been playing guitar, keyboards, and bass for a good 40 years now. I've been a worship leader and filled a variety of roles at times. I've done this in a variety of churches and have a few battle stories to tell myself. My own musical tastes are rather eclectic. I just run in streaks where I enjoy listening to a lot of different things for a time. At one point, I was one of those who threw out every non-Christian album I had and was an "expert" in hidden messages in popular music. I usually don't link bomb, but I'm on the board of a low power FM Christian station that's been streaming online for about 15 years now. It is one of the most eclectic combinations of Christian songs I've heard with a wide range of artists and genres. The fellow running it had the goal that no song would be played more than 3 times per day, no song would repeat at the same time per day, so there are a few hundred songs in the rotation. It's at 97x.fm (and has a streaming option). The only other point I'd add is this. Much of the criticism directed at modern Christian music misses one important thing. We are seeing this generation of music as it is being created. What we see of past generations are the gems that have lasted. We don't see the myriads of forgotten songs. For example, many of us know a handful of Isaac Watt's hymns. Come Ye that Love the Lord, O God our Help in Ages Past, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, Alas and Did My Savior Bleed, and Joy to the World. Most of his 750 or so songs are long forgotten. Charles Wesley is known for the lyrics for many hymns including, And Can it be that I should Gain, Christ the Lord is Risen Today, Come Thou Long Expected Jesus, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, and O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing. We only know a handful of 6000 that he published. A number of years ago going through my grandma's stuff, I found a number of old song books including one of Fanny Crosby. She wrote about 8000 hymns and gospel songs in her life including Blessed Assurance, To God Be the Glory, and Praise Him, Praise Him. I went through that song book and frankly didn't find any I liked. If Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, and Fanny Crosby are running at a rate where perhaps 1% of their songs are considered musical treasures in the church, I think we should cut modern Christian composers a bit of slack with regard to producing such music. If we fail to encourage them, our generation is merely guaranteeing that should the Lord tarry, we won't have many musical treasures to contribute to the next generations of Christians.

Sorry, I have no idea. One of my daughters is a skilled weaver. She has been have troubles with marketing too.

The conjecture that seems most reasonable to me is an earlier dating for some of the NT books. With a post 70AD dating of the synoptic gospels, it seems surprising that the fulfillment of Jesus' words about the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem are not explicitly mentioned. A post 70AD date for Hebrews too begs the question of why there is no mention of the physical fall of the Temple and cessation of sacrifices when that would be closely related to some of the themes of that book. Then of course in many books there is simply no natural place mention of it might occur.

@Henry_iain Very good post. Being a Christian is much more about the social side of being with other Christians, actually living our lives, and spiritually growing than it is about dotting the i's and crossing the t's of various doctrinal matters (which all too often amounts to trying to proselytize those who disagree so that they'll be better Christians). A number of years ago, God lead me to a Christian forum (which closed down many years ago) which had a huge impact in my life. The core principle there was along the lines "you are a special creation of God and I will rejoice in that creation" and the guiding principle of interaction was "I will assume the best about this post I am reading." It was at a time in my life where God took me out into a figurative desert for a time and that site was an oasis for me. There was a doctrinal section nicknamed "The Hockey Rink" where it was joked you needed to put on asbestos underwear before wading in and facing the flames. There was a wider range of views there than here. But, as soon as it was clear someone was struggling, that became the highest priority and any arguments dropped away. I never waded into it much myself because it was too hot for me at the time. But most people posted in the other sections and helped each other grow spiritually. I really miss that place. For many, it was a place to be vulnerable in ways we rarely ever are. One of the most frightening things for all of us is to reveal to others who we think God created us to be as unique individuals. It's usually much easier for us to confess hidden sins, faults, and failings than it is to take off the mask and let others see who we are. To be honest, most of us are much more ashamed to tell others who we think God made us to be than we are about sins and failings. We hide behind labels and masks that are socially acceptable for fear of being laughed at or scorned. Most of us are so used to seeing the masks in the mirror that we really don't know what our own face looks like anymore. I'm not talking about gifts and talents (which I see as tools) or characteristics or demographics we have in common with others, but something more profound and deeper. I mean the unique individual God created us to be. That site was full of people pulling off masks and encouraging others as they did. It was full of testimonies of healing, God's work in people's lives, and life experiences. For probably about 6 to 9 months, I spent hours in the evening reading through past threads and posts. I got to see God's working in various people's lives across years of posts and how they changed during that time. There's no one who can tell you who God created you to be. God just slowly helps us see ourselves, often by putting mirrors of various sorts in our way so we can see ourselves. In hindsight, He'd been doing that my entire life, but I hadn't been recognizing it. It was there I did what was perhaps the hardest thing I'd ever done. All my online avatars and usernames had been some variation of stuff I was good at doing or some variation of a ministry such as guitarist, worship-leader, teacher, servant, didaskalos (Greek for teacher), and similar types of names. It more or less reflected how I saw myself and was one of the masks I put on to show the world. I'd been there for maybe six months, and it took me about two weeks of wrestling to finally change my username to what I knew God wanted me to and it was one of the scariest things I'd done. It was a symbolic step but it meant leaving decades of comfortable mask-wearing and hiding behind. I was honestly expecting remarks about it being silly or pretentious. But instead, several people immediately gave encouraging words. I remember the first post was from a young lady who said something like, "I just knew it. That fits you so well." The bottom line is that I think they were all seeing something that I hadn't myself. Since then, I usually try to grab some variation of GandalfTheWise as a username as a reminder that my real purpose in places like this is to help people discover who God created them to be, to be encouraging, to help them shed unhelpful things, and to try to look through the various things they post to try to see that unique treasure and work of art God that has created them to be.

Interesting question. Here are a few thoughts. Is the artwork honest or not? If it is supplying helpful information, then it is a service. Does it increase someone's knowledge about the product by making it easier to understand and view? If so, that's a service. Does it make it easier for someone to navigate the site and find what they need? If so, that's a service. On the other hand, if it is misrepresenting the product, that's problematic. I guess it depends to some degree if the products provide some type of real value for the money for the people buying them. Value is to some degree subjective to each person. If you have some moral objection to the products themselves, then that might be reason to look for a different job. If most of us look closely at our jobs, we can find some moral objection to it. Anyone working at a large corporation is helping to enable its policies and its owners to make a profit. Unless we are working for a company or organization with policies, management, products, etc. that we completely agree with, to some degree we are compromising. In one sense, anyone who has ever worked at a restaurant has potentially contributed to the sin of gluttony. Almost every job any of us has had can potentially lead to problems in some way or violate our morals in some way. It's just a question of whether it rises to the level of having to take a personal stand or not. As a deeper question, is this perhaps God's way of giving a hint to be looking for a different job in which your talents and passions might be better applied? Sometimes it is through dissatisfaction or issues where we are at that God gets our attention to make changes.