Quote:
Originally Posted by All-American
You're right, I overstated it.
Is it possible that God is passionately interested in the affairs of men and still leaves many of them in the hands of His children?
|
It seems for some to believe in God's passitivity is tantamount for God not to give direction to the Church.
As I see it, I don't see Christ personally standing up before us, I don't see him performing ordinances and rarely do any leaders state they've even seen Christ. So in a traditional sense, Christ is not actively involved. That doesn't mean I disbelieve his role, I just understand it differently, despite Indy and Tex being willing to throw a bunch of "proof texts" which could be argued serve to legitimize the authority of those seeking to assert their authority.
We understand enough scripture and GA talks to think through this ourselves.
Why is it hard for members to accept the premise God is passionately interested in our affairs but willing to allow us to exercise almost unfettered agency, even in the management of an organization to which he lends his name? I'm not asking for a proof text, or a quote. Give me theological or philosophical why that must be so?
Isn't it more marvelous that he will allow us to work out our own way, with small course adjustments here and there? To me, He's showing greater faith in us than we are in him, by requiring him to do everything and by requiring word for word dictates.
In fact, it seems more marvelous that God works through fallible men and doesn't require their conduct of his affairs to be perfect, even allowing them to espouse and to conduct heresy.
Why is your faith challenged if God is not personally micromanaging the affairs of the Church?