The Inner Ring

[Kimberley Tobin]

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

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

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

[editor]

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

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

[al Hartman]

     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.

     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

[editor]

     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.

     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

[Kimberley Tobin]

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!

[al Hartman]

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!!!"

     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!!!

God bless,
al

[vernecarty]

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

[Mark Kisla]

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!!!"

     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!!!

God bless,
al

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

[al Hartman]

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

     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

[sfortescue]

     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.

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.

[vernecarty]

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

  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?

   
In gratitude to Him,
al Hartman

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

[Oscar]

 

  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.

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

[Oscar]

     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.

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.

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

[sfortescue]

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.

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.

Which particles are you referring to?

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.

[Scott McCumber]

 . . . . 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. . . .

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!