This is my second run through your podcast. I'm reading your transcripts now instead of just listening...
I've enjoyed your perspective on spiritual formation and believe that you have criticized my journey of spiritual formation, adequately. I did focus on the object of the outcome of spiritual formation in my life more than on God Himself and for his own sake. Thanks for this insight.
What is supernatural formation? It seems to me that the Holy Spirit could and does use both natural and supernatural means to transform a person into Christlikeness. Is this what you mean? The psychological concern I have with drawing our attention to the distinction is focusing on one over the other when both seem necessary. Indeed, It seems like we use supernaturally, enabled natural means to gain access to God through the formulation of thoughts, intentions, and words we call prayers, which seem natural, to invite God's action (supernatural) into our lives.
Should there be an integration of supernatural formation with natural formation? Or is the distinction that one is fleshly and the other is not?
This is a great question, and one that becomes a major issue in the tradition. I want to say that the words natural and supernatural can become a bit problematic in this regard. In Christ what is natural can be caught up into the supernatural. The problem is that, on the other side, there is nothing supernatural that cannot be made natural.
This is why, I think, Paul even criticizes the Corinthians for the way they practice the Lord Supper telling them that it isn't the Lord's meal that they eat when they do so. We can turn anything into the flesh. I like flesh/Spirit here, or with James 3, the way from above vs. the way from below, because it reveals that there is not a simple formula. We need to abide.
So the means that the Spirit uses is, in one sense, everything, but I also think it is important that we do not make that claim in such a way that waters-down the "normal" means of grace. God has established certain means for certain reasons, like preaching, singing, Lord's supper, etc. The temptation is to either bloat these practices to be the only that matter, or else to bloat grace such that there is no difference between the Lord's Supper and a good meal with friends. I want to find a middle path between those two.
This is my second run through your podcast. I'm reading your transcripts now instead of just listening...
I've enjoyed your perspective on spiritual formation and believe that you have criticized my journey of spiritual formation, adequately. I did focus on the object of the outcome of spiritual formation in my life more than on God Himself and for his own sake. Thanks for this insight.
What is supernatural formation? It seems to me that the Holy Spirit could and does use both natural and supernatural means to transform a person into Christlikeness. Is this what you mean? The psychological concern I have with drawing our attention to the distinction is focusing on one over the other when both seem necessary. Indeed, It seems like we use supernaturally, enabled natural means to gain access to God through the formulation of thoughts, intentions, and words we call prayers, which seem natural, to invite God's action (supernatural) into our lives.
Should there be an integration of supernatural formation with natural formation? Or is the distinction that one is fleshly and the other is not?
This is a great question, and one that becomes a major issue in the tradition. I want to say that the words natural and supernatural can become a bit problematic in this regard. In Christ what is natural can be caught up into the supernatural. The problem is that, on the other side, there is nothing supernatural that cannot be made natural.
This is why, I think, Paul even criticizes the Corinthians for the way they practice the Lord Supper telling them that it isn't the Lord's meal that they eat when they do so. We can turn anything into the flesh. I like flesh/Spirit here, or with James 3, the way from above vs. the way from below, because it reveals that there is not a simple formula. We need to abide.
So the means that the Spirit uses is, in one sense, everything, but I also think it is important that we do not make that claim in such a way that waters-down the "normal" means of grace. God has established certain means for certain reasons, like preaching, singing, Lord's supper, etc. The temptation is to either bloat these practices to be the only that matter, or else to bloat grace such that there is no difference between the Lord's Supper and a good meal with friends. I want to find a middle path between those two.