AssemblyBoard

In Assembly Reflections there is an article by C.S. Lewis entitled, "The Inner Ring" . I appreciate the work of C. S. Lewis but much of his writings and what he says in  "The Inner Ring" goes right over my head. Those of you who grasp what Lewis is trying to communicate would you be kind enough to share its meaning and application.

The primary reason that the posted article is incomprehensible is that the first half of it is missing!  I have a copy of that lecture by C. S. Lewis in a book.  It is 11 pages long, but the part posted is only the last 5 pages.

What I saw in the article, even if only half of it is there, is the lure of wanting to gain acceptance into the desired "inner circle" of whatever group you happen to be in.  Lewis points out that this desire can bring more heartache and make more scoundrels of us than even other more obvious sins, because we become false and men pleasers in the pursuit.  Applying the article to this ministry, the desire to be a "worker", or close to to the people at the top, maybe kept us silent when we should have spoken out, or kept us bound to an assembly long after it became a real strain on ourselves and our families to be there. The group takes precedence over the Lord Himself, or we confuse the two in our minds. I'm sure there's more there...this is just how it struck me after a quick read of it last week.  It's worth thinking about.  Becky

Interesting Becky, and Amen.

I didn't have a copy of 'The Inner Ring' so I found one online:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1389/646315.html

M

---

You can read the "Inner Ring " at this site:
http://faculty.millikin.edu/~moconner.hum.faculty.mu/in150/lewis2.html (http://faculty.millikin.edu/~moconner.hum.faculty.mu/in150/lewis2.html)

---

I found this link in an older thread.  It seems to be more complete.



« Reposted from: April 21, 2003, 02:16:38 pm »
« Reposted from: June 12, 2003, 07:37:18 pm »

     Day by day and moment by moment we must make the choice whether to put our energies into being spiritual or merely appearing to be spiritual.
     Bear in mind that our formative years on this earth were spent learning in and of all the ways of the natural man, that fallen creature who is separated from God and needs to be reborn in spirit by the Spirit of God.  So it is natural that we should find the way of spirituality to be hard, and we are attracted to the easier course of merely seeming spiritual by the performance of a few outward acts which place us in the company of those who are accepted by the multitudes as the "in crowd," that inner circle to which Lewis' article and Becky (above) refer.
     What makes the truly spiritual path seem so undesirable to our fallen nature is that we must each travel it alone and without fanfare.  All that we could ever need to be mature in Christ was given us at Calvary, and became ours to possess upon our acceptance of Christ by faith, just as our physical birth gave us the entire genetic makeup to become physically and mentally mature.  But maturity is still only achievable through the gradual maturing process.
     The natural man is impatient and craves the adulation of others.  To him the path of spiritual growth seems long, arduous, painfull, unnecessary.  The route to appearing spiritual can be swift, easy and instantly gratifying.

     The natural man cannot grasp two essential truths:  
     First, the appearance of spirituality is a house of cards, insubstantive, built upon the shifting sands of deception.
     Second, the way of real spiritual life and growth is, to the new creation in Christ, an easy yoke and a light burden to bear.  Why?  Because it is the Lord's own yoke and burden:  He bears it if we will just walk with Him, neither deferring nor detouring from the path of His choosing.
     When we turn our faces toward Jesus Christ, seeing Who He is and what wonders He has done and is yet doing in us, we become taken up with thanksgiving and worship and the desire to learn more of Him, and the attraction of having a spiritual reputation fades to nothing in the brightness of His countenance.

     Understanding this is important to us of assembly background because we were taught that spirituality was made evident, and was to be assessed by others who ranked above us, based upon the outward appearance of our performance of regimented acts of obedience.  Our leaders judged our "spirituality" by our works.
     Real acts of obedience are performed within the heart, before our Father Who sees in secret, and Who in turn rewards us openly by enabling us to manifest His goodness and glory in the doings of our lives.

     The real inner circle for us to know and enjoy is the Company of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, and all those whom He has chosen to dwell in His Presence.  No other circle matters...

al Hartman

Im sorry,

Normally I ignore this type of stuff, but I don't quite understand this.

Al, are you "the natural man," or a Christian?
Are you a whole person, or a divided person?
Do your choices determine your spirituality, or does the blood of Christ?

"I fear for you, lest somehow the serpent has distracted you from the simplicity that is in Christ."  paraphrase

Is our walk with the Lord dependent on us "neither deferring nor detouring from the path of His choosing?"  How do you really know the path, and what happens when you detour?  We all detour, from time to time, right?

Does obedience from the heart result in rewards and blessing?

These are important things to consider.

I answer "no" to most of the questions above, with one qualified yes.

Brent

What I get out of this is that there is that desire in all of us to want to be important. I think a healthy self esteem and a well balanced confidence is good. I think a desire to live to your full potential is good. If it's at the expense of others and self worth is acheived by having to dominate everything you're involved in, you'll have an empty life.
My opinion is that a fulfilling life includes not only pleasure from personal success, but joy with the success of those around you...You like it when you friends succeed and even pass your own accomplishments.
The "inner ring " could not exist without those on the "outside" who are needed for a inner ring to be formed.
 Joyful Churches that I have been in and have visited never had an obvious head honcho, heavyweight or inner ring. Sure there was a church staff and leaders, but never anyone who came across as the ultimate authority.

To All:  Please read this with prayerful, teachable mind & heart, taking care to not assign to my feeble language skills meanings adopted from the land of our former bondage:



     Please don't be sorry.  I'm not.  This is exactly the purpose of this board, is it not?-- to attempt to resolve the issues that confuse and confound us, to discuss doctrine toward fruitful ends and, above all, to exalt our Lord Jesus Christ.


     OK, here's where I risk causing Brent to lose his temper on this board for (by his count) the 401st time  :o:  
     The practice of labeling things that you "don't quite understand" as "this type of stuff," and saying that you normally ignore it is the kind of remark we have learned to expect from Geftakys followers.  It is unworthy of you, Brother.  To quote you, we are "better than that."



     As all were, I was conceived and born a natural man; not evil, but horribly lost.  The work of Jesus Christ at Calvary provided deliverance from that state, and when I learned of and accepted Him I became a partaker of that gift, a Christian, born anew of the Spirit of God.



     When Jesus said "It is finished," it was finished.  Everything needed to make me/us whole had been provided.  We are complete in Him.  But, that wholeness cannot be fully implemented until these corrupt, sin-tainted bodies we occupy have been replaced by new, glorified ones.
     Brent, you are a doctor.  You have occasion to treat the ailments of believers in Christ.  Are they complete?  Of course they are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but that very faith must be for them/us the substance and the evidence of the full redemption of our bodies until the appointed time of its fulfillment.  The bodies we now occupy and all their parts (including our brains) still bear the taint of sinful flesh that can only be overridden by Christ's work through the exercise of the faith with which He has gifted us.  If this were not so, we would already possess the glorified bodies He has promised.



     Again, Christ's work has accomplished everything necessary to make us spiritual.  There is nothing any of us could ever possibly do to gain one iota of spirituality.  But, God has given us the choice whether or not to receive and utilize that blood-bought spirituality in this present, corpse-bound life.  The decision is entirely ours every moment of our lives.


     A reasonable fear for any of us, which is why we pray for one another, and why you exhort me and I you.


(1.)  Yes, of course it is.  One can't walk if one defers to (doesn't) walk, and one can't walk with Someone if one takes a separate way.  The Lord is not going to change His plan so He can wander about with us...
(2.)  A truly loaded question, but a good and fair one.  This topic has had considerable discussion (in which you have participated) on more than one thread recently, and I think most if not all agree that it has no pat answer.  Jesus said "You know the way," and He said "I AM the Way."  That sums up the answer for us:  by looking to Jesus we are assured of not faltering, because He doesn't falter.  Think of Peter walking on the water...  Distraction cannot ever rob us of Christ and all we are and possess in Him, but it may separate us from the present experience of His Presence.
(3.)  He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His Name's sake, but what if I don't follow?  He may prod me with His rod, or pull me back by the crook of His staff, but He will never leave me nor forsake me.  I may turn away, but I can never lose His Presence; only the present enjoyment of it.
(4.)  Right.


     The operative phrase in this question is "from the heart."  The outward act(s) of "obedience" avail nothing.  Only Jesus Christ ever fulfilled the Law of God, and to fail in one point of the Law is to be guilty of disobeying it all.  If we attempt to please God by obeying Him outwardly, our efforts are doomed to failure.  No flesh will ever be justified by human behavior.
     But, (did you know that was coming? ;)) The obedience of the heart is that we believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, Who He sent.  And why does this obedience please God when none other can?  Because so believing is the exercising of faith, which is not a work of the flesh, but the using of a gift of God.  It is no credit to us, but comes from and returns to God.

     I am not Brent's peer as a student nor scholar, and make no claim to be a teacher.  I look to such as Brent, Tom M., Mark C. and numerous others for instruction and correction.  To any who can contribute clarity to this discussion, please post.

God bless us all,
al Hartman

Having been a protagonist in many  an instance of BB verbal sparring, let me share this for what it's worth.
My British influence lends to my own speech a kind of tartness and sometimes biting sarcasm that is really entirely a matter of style.
I want to encourage all, as I have had to learn, to avoid getting overly excited about how a person makes a statement, but rather focus on the merit of what is being stated. In an environment like this the proper choice of  phraseology is not always achieved. I think we are all big enough to extend to each other a bit of room to maneuver.
I recently had occasion to learn how easy it is to be umisundersttod when Karey thought a salvo meant for someone else was directed toward her. I felt quite the heel and am certain that it is not any of our purpose to offend fellow posters when we try to make a point, sometimes albeit poorly. Let's walk in liberty huh?
Verne

     You wanna step outside and say that, Fellah?!!!

     No, seriously, Verne, well said, point taken & thank you.

     For everyone else's information, if Verne & I ever step outside together, it will be arm-in-arm, as we are brothers beloved of one another.  Besides, he holds a 4th or 5th degree black belt in martial arts & he'd utterly destroy me if I forced it upon him! :o :o :o

 ;)al ;D

I am no scholar and I have only been out from under GG's influence for a little over a year.  But there are certain things that I am VERY clear about:

1)  I will no longer allow anyone (I mean anyone) tell me what I have to "do" in order to be accepted by God.  I don't need to "do" anything.  He has done it all, finished, end of sentence.  I am simply resting in what he has done for me.

Right now, I am not even attending church, as we haven't found a place and my husband is only here two days out of the week until he can find a job here.  We don't feel like spending half of one of those days looking for churches.  We did that one Sunday and it was miserable and then we've wasted half of one of his precious days here with his family.  All of that said, I don't feel guilty one bit, one iota.  I still have a relationship with Jesus Christ, I know he loves me and cares for me and I don't have to be in church to show it or know it.

2)  I don't have to read my bible, pray, worship through song, evangelize, be involved in ministry or any other such "service" in order to win brownie points with God.  I am fully "accepted in the beloved".  Any act of "service" or bible reading, prayer, etc. will be borne out of a heart to do so.  Notice the word "heart".  If my heart is in it, I will do it.  If it's not, I won't.  But whether I am doing any of those things or not, Christ doesn't look at me any differently (his judgemental people may, but he doesn't!)

3)  My walk with God is just that.......MY walk with God.  It is not anybody elses......to judge, to condemn, to critique, whatever.

4)  I am here to do one thing: to grow in the "grace" and "love" of God, nothing else.

You should have stopped right there!  Your next sentence is where you go off.
 
For anyone who may read this thread, please understand that I am reading meaning into Al's words, based on past dialogue that I have had with him.

Al, you are confused about something that is most important.  You are confusing the means of "blood-bought spirituality," with the evidence of the same.

This is most important, and lies at the heart of the error that the Galatians fell into.  Your obedience, your "walk" with the Lord, your "implementation of the wholeness of Christ," is evidence of your salvation, not a means of appropriating, or "enjoying" it.

Do you understand the difference?  You aren't saved because you believed in Christ.  You believe because you are saved.  

Now, I call this type of theology "stuff" because I reject it.  I know that others like it, and that is fine, I have plenty of friends who believe like that.  The reason I said I didn't understand it, isn't because the concepts of arminian/deeper-life teaching aren't familiar to me, but because I didn't understand what you were saying.  I call Deeper Life teaching  "Home Depot" theology.  

Now that I see that you are saying:

"Jesus did it all......BUT it's up to me to choose to enjoy it."

I don't buy it, and I reject this premise.  If it were up to you, Al, you would go to hell.  I would already be there ahead of you.  

Faith is useless and weak if its action depends on me in any way.  

Please reconsider your theology.

Brent

"Corpse bound life" brings back an awful memory of a workshop where main sister shared teaching about dead people not feeling things, so why let things get to you?  Die to self, etc.  Mentioned this to someone recently who was raised in a healthier Christian environment, he said that sounds like the Buddistic state of nirvana teaching.  Reach a high enough plane and you'll transcend those pesky life situations.  What a mix we had in the assemblies bag.
I can relate to something Kimberly said recently... I, too, can feel things again, I am alive and well.  When I get angry, I am not having "an emotional release", I am just... angry.  And I'm not having a "soulish experience" when I enjoy the music on Sunday morning, or when I feel great Monday afternoon or whenever.
And the Inner Ring?  Lewis says if you do passionately what you love to do, and share that with others, you'll have a ring of companions without even trying.
No need to include, exclude or play games about it.
Living and learning,
Becky

Deeper Life mysticism is very similiar to eastern mysticism.  Both creep me out.  Real Deeper Life is to be found in Jesus, not in myself.

Sure, the deeper life guy will say, "Amen!" to that; but right after Amen, they say,  "IF you are diligent to apply the cross and walk in the inward man," or some other such statement.

Jesus said,  "I am the Way, the Truth, The Life."   If we have Him, what more do we need?  The thief on the cross had Christ, and in a few hours he was going to be with Him in paradise.  Would he have done any better if he had a few years to learn about denying self, or overcoming the "corpse bound life?"  I think not.

At one time I was a deeper life junkie.  Now, I do not understand salvation, faith, or "walking" with the Lord, in this way at all.

In a nutshell,  I see faith, heart-obedience, changed outward behavior, cleansed thought-life, choices that please God, sincere desire to avoid sin and broken fellowship, repentance, desire to share Christ with the lost, wanting to give of one's time and money, thirsting after God's Word, wanting to pray, yearning to be changed into His image....I see all of this as evidence that a person has been touched by the grace of God.

Now, if a person never wants to do any of the above, and has no troubled conscience about their sinful lifestyle, and really could care less about any sort of "walk" with the Lord....I question if they are saved in the first place.  If we are a new creation in Christ, and old things have passed away, all things become new, how is it that we can be identical to the old in every way?

What about Romans 7, and the passages that talk about our struggle in this life?  Well, we are flesh and blood.  We can't help that.  The Spirit wars against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit.  It is going to be that way until we die or are raptured.  However, the very fact that this battle takes place is evidence of our redemption.  If there were no struggle, it could only mean that the flesh was not at war, because we are dead in our sins.  The very fact that we are making headway against the deeds of the flesh is evidence of God's grace, NOT a means to appropriating it!

Deeper Life proponents, in the fundamental analysis are saying this:

Yes, you are born again, praise God.  Now, if you want to enjoy all the blessings in Christ you must________ .

Here is a litmus test question:

In order to be a better Christian I must _________ .

How do answer that question?  It is extremely important.

Brent

On another note,  I like what Becky said about the inner ring.  People who are obsessed with labeling others "inner ringers" are usually upset that they aren't in the ring themselves.   Do what you love to do, passionately, and you don't need to even consider rings or any kind.

In order to be a better Christian I must    DO NOTHING!!!!!!!!

Any other answer and you haven't left the assembly mentality.

Yep, that's the correct answer.   This isn't must my idea, I can name many theologians, scholars, preachers and evangelists who agree.

People who don't agree:

Catholics
Deeper Life proponents---agree in word, but not in practice.

Al, you know we are friends.  You also know that I am not the least bit bothered by challenges, sincere disagreements of anything else that is above board and honest.  Certainly this thread fits the preceeding description.

However, some of the assertions you made below are just not consistent with the biblical doctrine of grace through faith alone.  You may not have meant them that way, but these are matters that we should be clear on.

Choosing is a work.  We aren't saved by works.  Works are evidence of saving faith, not a means of aquiring it---it's just that simple.

Brent

     At this point I am going to say thank you for your prayers, your instruction, counsel and correction.  I agree with everything said on this thread since my last post here.  But I am obviously either miscommunicating my thoughts or my thoughts themselves are in error.  In either case, I will shift into listening & learning mode for now. :-X

     While I am saying thanks, please know that I am grateful to all who have prayed for my search for a church to attend.  Thanks to God, I now enjoy worship, sound teaching and fellowship at Christ Covenant, a small but very alive reformed church.  That should cleanse me of any arminian leanings, right? ;)   If anyone is interested, the church has a website at:                http://www.tulip.org/ccr/      

     I didn't recognize it a few months ago, but I have been the recipient of much love, prayer, respect and counsel on this BB.  I came here with my heart and mind as open as I could manage at the time, and here God has further opened them.  I came here hoping to help and here I have been helped.  Thank you all.

 :Dal

Dear Al,

Please don't go into listening mode.  Your thoughts may or may not be in error, but your words, as typed, suggested some things that are error.   It's OK!  :)

You demonstrate courage to say what you believe, which is refreshing and welcome.  You are free to disagree, but must be willing to defend.  

If you are unsure, then say so, but if you really believe that our Christianity is based on moment by moment choices, either good ones or bad, spiritual or fleshly, then by all means stick to it!   Just be able to articulate why you believe that.

The reason I abandoned this type of teaching, is because I realized that it was just vacuum-packed works based salvation.  Once you open it, it sucks in air for a while, and then, after the excitement and anticipation wears down, you get to see what you bought.   A works-based righteousness, that can add nothing to what you had before you started!

Hey, bro!  Let's reason together.  If you believe it, then defend it.  If not, then explain.  You know as well as I do, that we aren't going to get into personal attacks, but this type of discussion is good, in fact it's great!

You know where I stand, how about you, and why?

Brent

This is exactly why I like this BB.  This BB is here for debate and dialogue.  Brent aptly replied to Al that we want to hear his viewpoints (whether we agree with them or not.)  You just need to support your thesis with reason and in some instances scripture (not taken out of context, btw. ;))

We were taught in the assembly that to question, have a differing point of view was tantamount to heresy.  We were taught to "suffer in silence."  That is NOT what we want you to do, Al.  We want you to enter into the dialogue.  This is how we learn, not believing that, "I'll just let the more learned ones dominate and I'll believe what I'm told."

UGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!  NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

We want you to THINK!  And the best way, oftentimes, to get you to think, is to enter into the fray of dialogue.

We love you Al!

     Thanks, Brent & Kimberley!  Believe me, please, I know I'm loved here, and I am definitely not "suffering" in silence.  But there is a time to be silent as well as a time to speak.  And, to quote Jack Benny in a skit where an armed robber demanded, "Your money or your life,"
     "I'm thinking, I'm THINKING!!!" ;D

     I have been speaking, and what others seem to be hearing is not at all what I thought I was saying.  So I am taking a break to reconsider, pray and try to figure out whether my words have been misinterpreted based upon others' preconceived ideas of what I believe, or whether I am actually misstating my beliefs.  The possibility also exists that I am confused about what I believe.

     Much of the first half of my life was dominated by men who broached no contradiction of their views.  It is not an example I wish to follow (My way, right or wrong!), so I'm taking a break to reconsider what I have been attempting to express and why I have been trying to say it.  Y'all aren't rid of me! ;)

     Keep those prayers & posts coming in, folks!!! :D

God bless,
al

It occurs to me that the simplicity of the gospel is such, as to render it entirely unbelievevable. It is entirely understandable, our strong urge to receive it with a caveat that enjoins on us some imagined duty in return.
As Tom Maddux once posted:

Nothing in my hands I bring
Simply to Thy cross I cling...!

Believe it people!!  :)
Verne

Al,
 Your response is a class act.
 Mark K.

     What is there to object to in this?  Clear.  Simple.  Perfect.

     Yet I can't help but think of a church which I heard of in my godless youth, which met only one Sunday morning each month.  So convinced were they of God's sovereignty and overshadowing grace that their only purpose in coming together was to catch up on the births & deaths within the membership...  Weird?  Extreme?  I thought so then, and I'd say so now.

     Yes, our inclusion in Christ and His salvation is literally a "given," and is the fruit of (not the means of) His work, not of ours.  Yet He seems to have given us also a nearly infinite capacity to confuse and obfuscate the simplicity of the gospel.  If the elect were reprogrammed instantly upon conversion to understand utterly and obey implicitly, would they yet have free will?
     Surely none of the elect would wilfully, even willingly, disobey and neglect so great salvation...  but can the elect be deceived, misled?  If the congregants of the church I mention were born again, it would seem that the answer is yes.  But perhaps they were all lost and only thought they were saved...?

     I agree with Brent that the life of Christ in us produces the behavior of righteousness, but we do not all see all things the same...  how wide may those variances be?  Are the parameters knowable?  Do we need to know them?

     For me the answer is in the simplicity of Christ:  I can cast all my cares upon Him Who cares for me-- no worries.  I see so doing as an act of faith.  Not an act of my devising, but my compliance with the urging of the Holy Spirit within me.  Could I resist complying-- go ahead and worry?  I think so.  And why might I do that?  Perhaps because the my flesh, so saturated with the ways of the world, is screaming so loudly that I am distracted from the still small voice with which God is speaking to me...?

     OOooooh-- I could feel your knee jerk when I said the "F" word.  As soon as some people see or hear the word "flesh," they go into a mindset that the speaker is an overcomer crusader, and all further points are lost.  We have to fight beyond our prejudices and preconceptions if we are to learn.  If that were not so, I would have been gone from your midst long ago.  Now beware of saying "That's undoubtedly true of him, but not of me for I am wiser and know better..."  If you have a stand, take heed lest you fall.

     Where I think I may be being misunderstood is on the matter of acts of faith.  Perhaps you think I consider those to be self-generated?  I do not.  The Bible clearly states that the faith by which we believe unto salvation is not of ourselves, but is a gift from God, so that we may have nothing, NOTHING, in which to boast.  The obedience of faith is an option, but the faith of obedience is a gift of grace from God.  Did that go by too fast?  The obedience of exercising our faith is an option for us, but the faith which enables us to obey by exercising it is the freely bestowed gift which God bestows upon all who believe by His exercising of His grace.  So then Godly obedience is nothing in which we may gloat or boast, but merely a willing agreeing with His empowerment to obey.  It is yet all by grace; all by the working of Christ in response to the will of the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.

     Cruden says of obedience:  
     "In the Bible the word is used most often in the sense of subjection to the will of God, and to His commands.  It is used in speaking of Jesus, who always did the will of God.
     "It is also used of hearts and inanimate things, which are subject to God's controlling power."

     If God had raised up children to Abraham from the rocks, the rocks themselves would have had no conscious nor active part in it.  They are rocks, and will be or do whatever God commands them because they have neither mind nor will.
     But God the Father spoke to Jesus, and Jesus obeyed willingly.  I delight to do Thy will, O God.  Or do you supposed that Jesus obeyed as a rock would, having no choice?  No, Jesus had a choice and stated it:  that this cup could pass from Him.  Then He proceeded to do what God the Father required of Him, acting not as the Almighty Son of God, but submissively as the Son of Man, empowered by the Holy Spirit within Him.
     Shall we then accuse Christ of augmenting the will of the Father by acting on His own authority, in the flesh?  God forbid.  He did nothing by Himself as a man, but did all by the authority of the Father and by the power of the Holy Spirit.  In God's Holy Presence no flesh, not even the sinless flesh of the Son of Man, shall boast.

     When we obey God from the heart, agreeing to allow the Holy Spirit within us to empower our willing response to His revealed will, we are not collaborating, corroborating or cooperating with God in some kind of team effort.  We are merely witnessing and bearing witness to the miraculous working of God's supreme grace in our lives.

In gratitude to Him,
al Hartman

To strain out a gnat, it seems like limiting God to say that the rocks would have no conscious nor active part if God chose to make of them children to Abraham.  In the beginning God likewise made Adam of the dust of the ground, and he wasn't lacking consciousness nor free will.

The quantum theory seems to imply that there is an aspect of causality that operates backwards in time.  One possible explanation of such behavior of subatomic particles is to suppose that they have some form of intelligence in deciding what they will do in order to accomplish a given goal.  This possibility seems to complicate the question of what we mean by an inanimate object.

If you wonder how something so small could behave in such a complex way, atoms are quite huge compared with the Planck scale.  The Planck scale is a small enough size that the magnitude of all of the kinds of forces in physics come together, and may be the size of the "threads" that the universe is woven out of.  The solar system is comparably huge compared with the size of an atom, and there are a lot of complex things contained within that range of sizes, so imagining that a subatomic particle could be intelligent is not out of the realm of possibility.

The distinction the Word of God to draws among the redeemed seems not to be one of status, but rather of stature...

Now I say that the heir as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.
Galatians 4:1

It is also true that we too ofen, incorrectly, ascribe what we see in some claiming sonship, to immaturity; to arrive at accurate conclusions, you must get the lineage right!... 'nuff said!
Verne

 

Al,

Regarding Ephesians 2:8-9, John Calvin once commented on these verses as follows:

"...he does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God..."   Calvin's Commentaries, vol 11, 145.

The reason he said this is that the Greek structure of the verse makes it clear that salvation is the gift, and not faith.

So, the paragraph in which you quote it needs some rethinking.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Steve,

Perhaps not out of the realm of possibility, but what about the realm of probability?

Which particles are you referring to?  I once had a physicist tell me that virtual particles move backward in time.  But a few weeks later he told me he had been mistaken.

Thomas Maddux

He must not have been much of a physisist to say something like that.  Particles moving backwards in time are anti-particles or vice-versa, depending on how you want to look at it.  Virtual particles aren't really virtual.  Intermediate particles in interactions that are not actually observed are called virtual.  Since observation changes the outcome of an experiment, the particles that are not observed are considered unobservable.  An attempt to observe them would change things so that you would not see what the unobserved particles were doing.  Equations that describe the outcomes of experiments have to take into account all of the possible combinations of intermediate events even though only one of the possibilities actually happens.  The reason for this has to do with the way the particles themselves choose their behavior based on the list of possibilities available to them.  This choice of behavior is also cooperative with what other particles will do.


All fundamental particles follow the same basic scheme of things with some variations of the details.  The one interaction that is most relevant to most of everyday physics is the interaction in which an electron changes trajectory absorbing or emitting a photon.  When I say trajectory, that also is a macro scale phenonenon.  Electron and photon trajectories are the result of many virtual interactions that keep them on their course.  If we could observe them without interfering with them, we would see that they actually travel a jagged path that approximates a straight line.  In fact, the farther a particle goes, the more likely that it will be replaced along the way by a different particle as in a relay race.  The way the mathematics works is that an interaction is like a puzzle piece that has to fit together with other interactions in a coherent way.  An interaction that doesn't fit doesn't happen, and if it only fits with difficulty, then its probability is less.  An interaction must fit both past and future.

Why? Because the process/mechanics of observing exerts some sort of pressure that causes change? Or because they don't like being watched?

What do you mean by "observe"? How is that achieved?

S

PS - You'll have to be patient with me, according to the Illinois Community Unit School District 301, I'm just your garden variety gifted - not Doogie Howser genius like the rest of you! ;D

ummmmm, quantum theory - the stuff headaches are made of (http://www.buildingup.net/post/images/smiles/newsmilie1041.gif)

In my opinion, modern quantum physics places too much emphasis upon intrinsic properties, with little consideration of those extrinsic.  I feel that this lack will be found to be a fundamental flaw in our approach.  Too often, important relational data is abstracted away - For example, a Volkswagon in Miami is considered to be "the same" as a Volkswagon in Chicago, even though they occupy very different positions relative to the rest of the material world.  Thus we "abstract away" spatial translations to help classify and identify objects.

Similarly we tend to "abstract away" differences in orientation as well as differences in velocity (both translational and angular).  Anyway, I think this passed over data needs to be addressed before moving on to the intellegence of particles, but just my opinion  ::)


--
lucas

My physicist friend had earned his Ph.d. in physics in the 1960's, but had been teaching computer science from the early 80's on.  Maybe he wasn't up to date.

Another physicist I know told me that in large numbers quantum objects follow the laws of statistical probability, and therefore behave virtually deterministically.  The example she gave was a podium.

BTW, you were already a science whiz kid when I met you just after you had left high school.  Did you continue with your education post-assembly?  I can remember you doing calculus homework while you lived with us on Andasol.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I really appreciate the conversation below. It really stirs the intellect. Sure wish I understood it. Well, got to go now, Gilligan's Island just came on.

--Joe

Joe, I'm with you. Maybe we can get The Professor to explain it to us. Do you think Stephen is as smart as The Professor?

Nah! The guy made a radio out of coconuts, for heaven's sake! ;D

S

Joe,
If only you said the selfers prayer, then you would understand. Shame on you

Hehe, Steve sent me an email involving a number theory concept to detail a mathematical theorization I mentioned on another board a little while ago.  Man, that was a bear and a half to wrap my head around (he was viewing the problem in such a different way than I had been).  My vote would most definitely be for him

--
lucas

I liked the one where Gilligan heard one person's argument and said, "you're right!", then heard the opponent's argument and said, "you're right!", at which point the skipper said, "they can't be both right!", and Gilligan said, "you're right too, my friend!".


After thinking about it, perhaps your friend's first comment was about the small scale jagged path behavior of a particle.  Besides wandering a little from the straight line path along the way, it also varies on the small scale from its large scale constant velocity, and can even travel backwards in time or exceed the speed of light for fleeting moments along the way, as well as swap roles with another particle that continues in its place.  The small scale behavior of a particle is pretty much anything goes.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

There is a mathematical principle of information theory that says that optimally compressed information is indistinguishable from random numbers, so something that appears random may actually be meaningful.  It takes quite a lot of amplification for the behavior of a particle to produce macro scale changes.  The butterfly effect is the idea that the weather after a long enough period of time will be changed in a major way because of a butterfly flapping it's wings.  This is because weather is an unstable chaotic system and amplifies small changes.

My post-assembly education has mostly consisted of reading.


Isaiah 45:15
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

The particles are very small, and the more you try to learn about them the more they are changed by it.  In order to be detected, a particle needs to interact with another particle which will change its trajectory and other properties as well.  One simple example of electrons being observed is when they hit the phosphors of a computer display screen and produce light.  Of course that changes their trajectory a lot.

Quantum physics has caused so much consternation among physicists over the years that there has been an enormous amount of effort expended on trying to make it seem sensible.  No way around quantum weirdness has been found, and it has even been mathematically proven that there is no deterministic hidden variable explanation for behavior that obeys the quantum equations.  The closest that has been constructed is an unrealistic explanation that involves instantaneous action at a distance.  Experiments have demonstrated that there is no limit to how far away such instantaneous causation can operate.

The classic example is electron diffraction as it passes through a pair of slits on the way to a display screen.  Of course, each electron only passes through one of the two slits, but the diffraction and interference effects produce a pattern of light and dark stripes on the display screen from the stream of electrons.  The dark stripes are places the electrons tend not to go.  If you block one of the two slits and prevent electrons from going that way, the dark stripes go away, and the electrons produce uniform illumination of the screen.  So each electron goes through one of the two slits and decides where it will avoid landing on the screen based on the fact that there are two ways it could have choosen to get there.  With one slit blocked, it isn't so prejudiced and lands anywhere.

... (Inaccurate statement about interferometer retracted) ...

It is foundational to science that experiments are repeatable.  Without repeatability, what can possibly be meant by the idea of trying to explain things.  Quantum theory very carefully and explicitly accounts for the various forms of repeatablity by using the mathematical theory of symmetry groups.  The forms of repeatability include space and time translation, rotation, relativistic motion, space and time reversal, certain changes of particle types and properties, and swapping between various identical particals in the system.  Many experiments are done to identify which symmetries exist.

Scott,

     I, too, was labeled garden variety gifted, but within the context of the garden I'm probably considered just a weed. :-\

     Actually, I've understood every word that's been posted on this thread.  It's when they string them all together the way they do that I feel like an utter cretin. ??? :P

     Hey, how 'bout them Patriots?!! ;D ;D ;D

al

Brent,

You wrote,

"Do you understand the difference?  You aren't saved because you believed in Christ.  You believe because you are saved. "

Actually this is an idea that comes from a Catholic theologian.  The "Reformed" churches frequently teach this, which is why I frequently refer to them as semi-reformed.

The origin of this teaching, as far as I have read, comes from  Augustine of Hippo's "Enchiridion".  It is his interpretation of a phrase from I Corinthians 7:25.

The problem is that the Bible contains passages like, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Romans 4:3.  "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."  Acts 16:31.  The order here is clear.

You have also said that faith is a work.   In the sense that faith is, at least, a mental action I suppose you could say that.  But the teaching that Paul enveighs against in Galatians is that a man must perform the works of the law to be saved or to please God.

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith."  Gal 3:2  Faith is contrasted with works here.

If we believe because we are saved, we would have to claim that Jesus did not understand the gospel!

"...Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, repent and believe in the gospel."  Mark 1:14-15.  Notice, his hearers are commanded to do two things: 1. repent  2. believe.

We are saved by grace, through faith.  The grace comes from God.  The faith is our response.  We walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham.  Romans 4: 12-16.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom

So you're saying that we here in this discussion are making the act of faith out to be "works" when it is not, muddying the issue?

S

Hi Tom,

I don't think I said faith was a work, but if I did, it was a mistake, or at least an unclear statement.  I am in total agreement that Paul CONTRASTS faith with works.

As for Acts 16:31, this is one of a few passages that show "order."  Believe, then get saved.   Of course the next step to this order is that the whole family is now saved.

Is this also part of the order?  If I believe, then I get saved, then my family is automatically saved?  

My point is that this verse comes from this:

25  But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.  26  Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed.  27  And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself.  28  But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here."  29  Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.  30  And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  31  So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."  32  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.  33  And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.  34  Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

The jailer had been listening to the singing and prayers of Paul and Silas.  When the earthquake occured, he linked the prayers and hymns to God's power and deliverance, and was saved before vs. 31.  Verse 31 was more of an instruction to a new believer, than a crossroad experience for the Jailer.  Remember, he came and fell down before Paul and Silas, and expressed belief before they told him what he had to do.  

The Holy Spirit had already done something in the man's heart, and his belief and subsequent actions made it abundantly clear that he was indeed a new creation in Christ.

As for Abraham, wasn't he already righeous before he "believed God," in the passage you quote above?  I don't see how that verse can be looked at as Abraham's salvation experience.

What about Paul?  He was knocked off the donkey, saw a really bright light, and came face to face with Christ's majesty.  This didn't happen after he prayed to receive Christ, but before.

Now, I do need you to answer a question for me.  The verb tense of "believe" in Acts 16:31 is Aorist.  I really don't know what, if any impact that has on the passage, as I don't fully understand the subtleties of the Aorist tense.  My understanding is that it could be translated in the past tense, which means that the jailer already believed.  (I don't know if I understand the verb tense, so please educate me)

If what I say immediately above is true, then this passage cannot be used as an "order" to salvation.  Of course, if I don't know what I am talking about, I would appreciate being set straight!  :)

Brent

On Edit, what do we do with the many passages that suggest a different order?  There are plenty that say we don't believe unless God has revealed to us, or that only those that are drawn by the Spirit believe, etc.  Not to mention, this point of Acts 16 is not to instruct about the order of events leading to salvation, but to testify of the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of the Phillipian Jailer.

Here are some verses that are more in context about the order of "events" leading to salvation:

Jhn 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; ….

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Brent,

Look for my reply over on "Salvation is a Gift...now what?"

Tom

The following, from A Word A Day, by Anu Garg, seems applicable to the discussion quoted above:

resistentialism (ri-zis-TEN-shul-iz-um) noun

   The theory that inanimate objects demonstrate hostile behavior against us.

[Coined by humorist Paul Jennings as a blend of the Latin res (thing) + French resister (to resist) + existentialism (a kind of philosophy).]

If you ever get a feeling that the photocopy machine can sense when you're tense, short of time, need a document copied before an important meeting, and right then it decides to take a break, you're not alone. Now you know the word for it. Here's a report of scientific experiments confirming the validity of this theory:

     http://www.uefap.co.uk/writing/exercise/report/clatri.htm (http://www.uefap.co.uk/writing/exercise/report/clatri.htm)

As if to prove the point, my normally robust DSL Internet connection went bust for two hours just as I was writing this. I'm not making this up.
--Anu Garg

  "Resistentialism has long been used in our family to explain the
   inexplicable: Why light switches, fixed in place in daylight hours,
   elude groping hands in darkness. Why shoestrings break when
   we are in a hurry...  The explanation for these and many more
   daily occurrences is that there is no such thing as an inanimate
   object.  Seemingly inanimate objects actually resist those they
   are intended to serve."
   --Myron A. Marty; Hostile Inanimate Objects Have Their Murphy's
   Law; St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri); Sep 15, 1996.

  "Reports of resistentialism abound in ephemeral literature as well.
   The Peter Tamony Collection at the University of Missouri,
   Columbia, contains dozens of newspaper clippings documenting
   the phenomenon ...
   Among Tamony's clippings is a story about a lady in London
   whose telephone rang every time she tried to take a bath. No
   matter what time she drew the bath, day or night, the phone
   always rang -- and when she'd answer it, nobody was there.
   Things eventually got so bad that she stopped bathing
   altogether, which prompted her husband to investigate the
   problem pronto... In the great scheme of things (think
   about that one!), Jennings tells us, we are no-Thing, and Things
   always win."
   --Charles Harrington Elster; Resistentialism: Things Are Against
   Us (Including Our Own Words); New York Times Magazine; Sep
   21, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Happy April first, everyone!  :)  ;)  :D  ;D  ::)

al

Thanks Al. Nobody would believe me when I told them I bought an angry bag of potatoes just the other night. This is proof.  thanks once again.

--Joe

Now I know why my suburban "engine light" came on!

I fixed it by going and and just purchasing a new one!   ;D

You fixed it by purchasing a new "engine light".  Wow.  I wish things on my car were that easy to fix.

Kimberly,  Purchased a new engine light or new suburban?  BTW things always went wrong on my sub so I purchased a Ford Excursion :) :) Diesel is way less and I get twenty around town and twenty-five on the highway! Don't have to smog it either.

Suzie,  Ford Excursion replaced a suburban or a submarine?  ;D  ;D  ;D

---

You can read the "Inner Ring " at this site:
http://faculty.millikin.edu/~moconner.hum.faculty.mu/in150/lewis2.html (http://faculty.millikin.edu/~moconner.hum.faculty.mu/in150/lewis2.html)

---

O.K., O.K., I hadn't seen this until today.  You got me!  I purchased a new suburban.   I didn't think anyone would think I would purchase a new engine light!   ;D ;D

I can't stand diesel.  Granted you get better gas mileage, you just can't hear yourself think!   ;D

True, but at least it blocks out the voices  8) ::)

--
lucas