True hope is not wishful thinking. Hope is a product of faith in God. The first verse of Hebrews chapter eleven elaborates that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Scripture also records that Jesus is our hope of glory. All these eternal things are not ethereal concepts, but substances of the nature of God personified in Christ. Hope, faith, love, truth, life all of these are in Christ.
When I say these things are in Christ, substance of His substance, I am not referring to wishing, blind acceptance when there is no evidence, emotions of romance or affection, doctrines, or biology. I am talking about eternal substantial hope, faith, love, truth, and life. I am talking about them in their true form. A form that is available for us to experience tangibly in Christ.
We do this when we encounter Him. Each encounter with Him reproduces what He is eternally into us. Thus, we have hope because we connect with His substantive reality of being. Our hope is not wishful thinking, but something so real it resonates within us and awakens us to the eternal reality.
Christians believe with such tenacity because we have been made alive on the inside and our inner man knows the reality of that which we profess.
33 comments:
Hope for or of what?
Well, it's not a hoping for something to be true, but an eager expectancy of the reality of eternal truths.
karla said: an eager expectancy of the reality of eternal truths.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what that means. Could you run that by me again, but in English this time?
To give an analogy it is akin to the anticipation of a groom for his bride or a bride for her groom. Or parents for the birth of their child. It's not that the bride/groom or parents wishes really hard for their desire to come to fruition, but that they are excited at entering the reality of that desire.
In comparison the hope I speak of is similar to that sort of thing except the object being eternal -- hence God, heaven, joy, love, life, righteousness etc.
I'm still not sure what you're hoping *for*..... That things live up to expectations?
Brides and Grooms should know each other very well indeed before they get married. Parents should be fully aware of what they're getting into before they have children (in ideal circumstances).
Where then is the hope? Hope that things go as well as they had planned? Hope that nothing bad happens along the way? Hope that their dreams come true to some extent?
@ Cyber'
I think the topic best applies to those those who are already Absolutely certain that they are right, which could be why you are having a hard time relating to it. Moreover, since "hope" evidentally doesn't mean what it means to you and me, but instead, it simply means an eager anticipation of an outcome that one is certain to be True/certain to come True, then perhaps a more fitting title would have been, "True Anticipation". But again, it probably wasn't aimed @ guys like you and me, because if it was, it would really just be another way of saying "I know the Truth", which we both know is useless to the unconvinced.
One of the definitions at dictionary.com “To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.”
It’s like a longing with the knowledge that it is coming or has come to fruition.
I am not talking about it in the sense of wishing for something to be true. But the reaction to the confidence that it is thus.
So the anticipation of experiencing the coming child or coming marriage. The aforementioned natural example falls short of being what I am talking about, but is the closest analogy I can think of at the moment.
Boom, yes the post wasn’t written expressly to atheists. I just put it out there because it was something I was thinking about and I typically put my thoughts to paper.
"I am not talking about ['hope'] in the sense of wishing for something to be true. But the reaction to the confidence that it is thus." ~ Karla
Right; 'got it. So like I said, not "hope" in the real-world, colloquial sense, but in the "I know I'm right", theological sense, which again, is utterly meaningless to the unconvinced.
Karla said: It’s like a longing with the knowledge that it is coming or has come to fruition.
But... If you *know* it's coming to fruition there is no need to *hope* for it. What you're talking about is anticipation. You cannot both *know* and *hope*. Its an either/or kind of thing.
Karla: "['True Hope'] is like a longing with the knowledge that it is coming or has come to fruition."
Cyber' responds: But... If you *know* it's coming to fruition there is no need to *hope* for it. What you're talking about is anticipation.
I would add, if the anticipated "has come to fruition"(past tense), then, in a practical sense, neither "hope" nor "anticipation" are applicable. But of course, I acknowledge that we aren't dealing with the practical here.
The word "hope" has been reduced to wishing for something, but that isn't what it means in it's Biblical context.
"The word 'hope' has been reduced to wishing for something, but that isn't what it means in it's Biblical context." ~ Karla
Right, and "biblical context" is only meaningful to who? Answer: to those who are already convinced the bible is true(as we've established over and over and over).
In any event, you previously offered an analogy. You said that the biblical meaning of "hope", what you call, "True Hope", is "akin" to parents-to-be anticipating a child. Yet, you go on to say that "True Hope" isn't just "wishing" for something to come to fruition, but it is knowing that it will come to fruition.
Well, I'm sorry Karla, but parents can't know with "Absolute Certainty" that they will have a child in the same way that you (claim to) "know" that you are right about your religious beliefs. According to the definition that you provided, you are essentially saying that parents expecting a child don't have "True Hope", but only a "reduced" hope. IOW, the implication is something less.
Do you ever stop to think how your various translations of "biblical context" into real-world terms come across? Could you imagine telling a mother-to-be from your church whose child was still-born that she didn't have "True Hope"? You would never say something so insensitive, now would you?
Assuming you wouldn't, here's a thought: Since "biblical context" obviously necessitates redefining words in the common English language, and since your analogies admittedly "fall short"(and I agree), and since even Christians could find your "custom definitions" offensive in a discussion, why not Xians just make up their own words that only apply to them? Like, instead of "hope", as in "True Hope", maybe call it "True Joop", or something?
Boom “Right, and "biblical context" is only meaningful to who? Answer: to those who are already convinced the bible is true(as we've established over and over and over). “
Remember my post wasn’t directed to atheists, it was just something I was thinking about that I wrote about.
“In any event, you previously offered an analogy. You said that the biblical meaning of "hope", what you call, "True Hope", is "akin" to parents-to-be anticipating a child. Yet, you go on to say that "True Hope" isn't just "wishing" for something to come to fruition, but it is knowing that it will come to fruition.”
I used the title “true hope” not to bash the hope people have in whatever context, but to talk about it in its eternal sense.
A pregnant woman is not wishing to have a child; she is expecting to have a child. Something could come about that that expectation is thwarted, but like I said it isn’t a perfect example.
Boom “Well, I'm sorry Karla, but parents can't know with "Absolute Certainty" that they will have a child in the same way that you (claim to) "know" that you are right about your religious beliefs. According to the definition that you provided, you are essentially saying that parents expecting a child don't have "True Hope", but only a "reduced" hope. IOW, the implication is something less.”
I think you missed my point.
Boom “Do you ever stop to think how your various translations of "biblical context" into real-world terms come across? Could you imagine telling a mother-to-be from your church whose child was still-born that she didn't have "True Hope"? You would never say something so insensitive, now would you?”
Goodness, no. I was saying nothing of the sort. I wasn’t saying that a mother who lost a baby wasn’t truly hoping right. I was only talking about the state of hope, that it wasn’t a wish, but a joyful expectation. In the natural something can thwart that desire and that object not come to fruition, but in the eternal nothing can.
“Assuming you wouldn't, here's a thought: Since "biblical context" obviously necessitates redefining words in the common English language, and since your analogies admittedly "fall short"(and I agree), and since even Christians could find your "custom definitions" offensive in a discussion, why not Xians just make up their own words that only apply to them? Like, instead of "hope", as in "True Hope", maybe call it "True Joop", or something?”
Actually it’s the opposite. The English language has fallen away from the original meanings and contextualization of many Biblical words.
Boom “Right, and "biblical context" is only meaningful to who? Answer: to those who are already convinced the bible is true(as we've established over and over and over). “
Remember my post wasn’t directed to atheists, it was just something I was thinking about that I wrote about.
“In any event, you previously offered an analogy. You said that the biblical meaning of "hope", what you call, "True Hope", is "akin" to parents-to-be anticipating a child. Yet, you go on to say that "True Hope" isn't just "wishing" for something to come to fruition, but it is knowing that it will come to fruition.”
I used the title “true hope” not to bash the hope people have in whatever context, but to talk about it in its eternal sense.
A pregnant woman is not wishing to have a child; she is expecting to have a child. Something could come about that that expectation is thwarted, but like I said it isn’t a perfect example.
Boom “Well, I'm sorry Karla, but parents can't know with "Absolute Certainty" that they will have a child in the same way that you (claim to) "know" that you are right about your religious beliefs. According to the definition that you provided, you are essentially saying that parents expecting a child don't have "True Hope", but only a "reduced" hope. IOW, the implication is something less.”
I think you missed my point.
Boom “Do you ever stop to think how your various translations of "biblical context" into real-world terms come across? Could you imagine telling a mother-to-be from your church whose child was still-born that she didn't have "True Hope"? You would never say something so insensitive, now would you?”
Goodness, no. I was saying nothing of the sort. I wasn’t saying that a mother who lost a baby wasn’t truly hoping right. I was only talking about the state of hope, that it wasn’t a wish, but a joyful expectation. In the natural something can thwart that desire and that object not come to fruition, but in the eternal nothing can.
“Assuming you wouldn't, here's a thought: Since "biblical context" obviously necessitates redefining words in the common English language, and since your analogies admittedly "fall short"(and I agree), and since even Christians could find your "custom definitions" offensive in a discussion, why not Xians just make up their own words that only apply to them? Like, instead of "hope", as in "True Hope", maybe call it "True Joop", or something?”
Actually it’s the opposite. The English language has fallen away from the original meanings and contextualization of many Biblical words.
"Remember my post wasn’t directed to atheists, it was just something I was thinking about that I wrote about." ~ Karla
Then it seems strange that you would conclude said post with what appears to be an explanation for why "Christians believe", when I think it's safe to assume that Christians already know why they believe. You said...
"Christians believe with such tenacity because we have been made alive on the inside and our inner man knows the reality of that which we profess."[emphasis added] ~ Karla
Christians believe because [yada, yada]. IOW, I'm not convinced that your post wasn't meant partially, if not mostly, for your nonbelieving readership.
It's like, since you can't offer any objective confirmation for your beliefs, you set out to simply tell us myriad different ways that you know you're "right", as if that will magically be convincing one day.
"I used the title 'true hope' not to bash the hope people have in whatever context, but to talk about it in its eternal sense." ~ Karla
Right, and my question was, why, if the "hope" part in the "external sense" of "True Hope" doesn't actually mean "hope" at all, but something entirely different, call it "Hope"? It's misleading to slap capitalization and a modifier on a word that has a commonly accepted meaning in and of itself. The word "hope", in a colloquial sense, has nothing to do with "Absolute Certainty".
"Goodness, no. I was saying nothing of the sort" ~ Karla
I didn't say you said it. I asked a question based on a hypothetical senario which was based on a definition of a term that you provided.
"I was only talking about the state of hope, that it wasn’t a wish, but a joyful expectation." ~ Karla
But you took it a step further than that and said that you have "knowledge" that your "expectation" will come to fruition. 'Slight difference.
You've made it clear that there is a distinction between "hope"(in a colloquial, real-world context), and "True Hope"(in a religious context), clarifying that the later is more than "wishing"/"anticipating", but knowing, as seen here:
Karla: "['True Hope'] is like a longing with the knowledge that it is coming or has come to fruition."[emphasis added]
"A pregnant woman is not wishing to have a child; she is expecting to have a child." ~ Karla
A pregnant women can both wish for *and* expect a child; one doesn't preclude the other(as I said previously).
Previously, me: According to the definition that you provided, you are essentially saying that parents expecting a child don't have "True Hope", but only a "reduced" hope. IOW, the implication is something less.
Karla responds: "I think you missed my point."
Yes, of course, obviously. It could never be that you are wrong, and/or, that your explanations are simply confounded and contradictory. So then it must be that you are being "misunderstood".
"Actually it’s the opposite. The English language has fallen away from the original meanings and contextualization of many Biblical words." ~ Karla
Karla, the "English language" has "fallen away" from the original Anglo Saxon, too. Are you saying that if King James had not authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started in 1604, that we should still be speaking Anglo Saxon "Old English"???? Please.
karla said: The English language has fallen away from the original meanings and contextualization of many Biblical words.
As far as I know, the Bible was translated *into* English from it's original language. English has not 'fallen away' from its original Biblical meanings it originated and developed *independently* from the Bible. The English language has changed over time - evolved if you will - because of the ever changing world culture of which it is a part.
Do you expect language to be fossilised in some by-gone age?
Oh, I read your Atheism article on Helium....
It would appear that you haven't learnt much from your interactions with you non-beliving visitors.....
Could it be we just have a different way of seeing things? I think I have learned a lot from you guys even though I don't share your perspective. Much of what I wrote in that article I gleaned from reading a book by an Oxford professor. The last paragraphs were what I feel is true that people who do not believe in God will find real experience with Him when Christians truly reveal Him in power and love. There are many testimonies of this happening and I think those will only increase as time goes on.
I have to agree with Cyberkitty.
"the movement is inextricably tied to the modern era and a response to the modern religion of rules and regulations devoid of love and power"
I'm an atheist because I find the idea of an all powerful God silly. I don't think there is anything the church can do to change this.
Oh, I think there are a diversity of reasons people today are atheists. I was speaking of it in a historical context of the movement rather than individual choices. I don't think all atheists are atheists because they don't like rules found in church. But if the Church was more of who she is intended to be there would very likely be greater interest. If Christians were the most loving people on the planet and frequently healed people and raised people from the dead and told them their deep desires of their heart without any natural knowledge I think most people would have a renewed interest in God. Christians as a whole do not live this way, but there are some emerging that are.
karla said: Could it be we just have a different way of seeing things?
Oh, we have *very* different ways of seeing things. That is beyond any reasonable doubt!
karla said: I think I have learned a lot from you guys even though I don't share your perspective.
Not from the evidence of your Helium article.
karla said: Much of what I wrote in that article I gleaned from reading a book by an Oxford professor.
Title? Author?
karla said: The last paragraphs were what I feel is true that people who do not believe in God will find real experience with Him when Christians truly reveal Him in power and love.
I wouldn't honestly hold your breath on that one......
Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath
"Alister McGrath"
Yes, not surprisingly, a Christian apologist/theologian.
Here's a suggestion: Perhaps let an Atheist tell you what it would take to convince them to become a "Christian".
And Atheism is on the decline? 'Got an objective source for that?
boomSLANG said: And Atheism is on the decline? 'Got an objective source for that?
It's certainly not in decline in Europe. In the UK in particular in just about every measurable way it is religion that's in free-fall.
Boom, he used to be an atheist.
Cyber, yes it is very popular in Europe as far as I know. But from reading the book, it seems he is saying that the present cultural changes will cause it to fade. But he certainly could be wrong about that. Only time will tell.
karla said: it is very popular in Europe as far as I know.
[laughs] You make it sound like a fashion statement - like blue being this years dress colour!
karla said: But from reading the book, it seems he is saying that the present cultural changes will cause it to fade.
"Present cultural changes"...?
I see no sign of it fading. The statistics of everything from church attendence, to people joining the priesthood, to church closures, to the sale of religious Christmas cards say otherwise....
"Boom, he used to be an atheist." ~ Karla
As did we all, at least, in a passive sense.
Nonetheless, he seems to be making the assumption(and you seem to be buying into it) that what convinced him to convert to Christianity is what will convince all nonbelievers to do the same, when in fact, not only is that wrong, but I'll wager that one of the things that convinced him was/is reading "the Bible", when ironically, for many atheists, myself included, it was reading said book that contributed to my deconvertion from Christianity, and my subsequent becoming an atheist(active).
He didn't discuss his conversion really. So that would be an assumption I cannot affirm or falsify. He didn't make assumptions about what it would take for individuals to become Christians. The last couple paragraphs of my article had nothing to do with his book. His book was more a general cultural and historical study.
The article in question is titled, "Causes of Atheism".
In it, you say...
"Atheism will fade into obscurity as the truth shines brighter, so bright that it shows the atheists the reality of what they think is wishful thinking"
In making such a claim, it is implied that there will be certain evidence forthcoming and that said evidence will convince nonbelievers across the board, since it is clear that you aren't talking about 3 or 4 members of a movement, but "Atheism", as a whole.
So, necessarily, the implication is that you know what will convince all Atheists, despite your disclaimer that your article isn't meant to be "comprehensive" in any way.
IOW, you are contradicting yourself.
Correction:
I guess it could be knit-picked that while the post is titled "Causes of Atheism", the link to the article, itself, is titled, "What was the cause of atheism".
In any event, to my understanding, one would have to know what each Atheist would accept as evidence to change his or her mind, in order to claim to know that Atheism, as a whole, will one day "fade into obscurity".
Boom “In making such a claim, it is implied that there will be certain evidence forthcoming and that said evidence will convince nonbelievers across the board, since it is clear that you aren't talking about 3 or 4 members of a movement, but "Atheism", as a whole.
So, necessarily, the implication is that you know what will convince all Atheists, despite your disclaimer that your article isn't meant to be "comprehensive" in any way.”
I see what the Church is on the verge of and what I see getting ready to become so frequent that those who are not in the Church community will most likely see it too. Miracles will not be a random report heard here and there, or frequent reports from isolated ministries, it will become an everyday occurrence in the lives of believers so much so that it is unlikely there will be many who will not have observed such a manifestation of the eternal realm.
As I said, to Cyber, time will tell.
Ah, so you're "prophesying" that "prophecy" will come true. Clever.
Post a Comment