I hope the post isn't too mocking in tone...

http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2012/02/apostle-paul-visits-puritanboard.html

A comment at the above post was written, and I missed it. I've answered it.

The obvious is not so obvious

[This was an email in a long, on-going conversation about the Christian faith with people who are in various stages of being introduced to Reformed Theology and the 'power of Reformed Theology'...]

When you catch on to the complete picture you realize how much of the spirit world is involved in everything going on around you. Obviously currently it is the Kingdom of Satan and those powers and principalities that are most active in terms of numbers, but that's because God's people are mostly currently sleepwalking and taking other things more seriously (being in strong identification) with various illusion and vain things. Once you awaken in the moment you are actually used, can be used, by real will (God's will), as a participant in the battle and the development (the harvest is big, the workers are few) of God's Kingdom.


There's an on-going analogue in the spirit world with our physical presence in this world. Our spirit, which is part of our soul, is connected to a source of life in the spirit world. Our spiritual body exists in the spiritual world and what happens to it is reflected in what happens to us in the physical world and vice versa.


Biblical doctrine is the truth that we actually wear in the spiritual world. Our understanding determines the extent of our apparel in terms of it being armor of light/armor of God. A novice perhaps only has a plain white garment. A fully developed knight with great understanding has the full armor of God and a strong, battle-tested horse (horses always symbolize emotion and in this sense emotion under control and higher emotion).


Before regeneration our spirit body is in Hades, or in the part of Hades that the devil controls, or is allowed to control. Regeneration then makes our spirit body actually move out of that dark place into the light, or the part of Hades (or maybe even out of Hades altogether now that Jesus led captivity captive at his death on the cross), and we see this process happen in how the world reacts to it here in the physical world. We're now behind enemy lines here. But we have the armor of God. By degree. And understanding which is sort of the temper of the metal of our armor.


In this all there is a lot of grinning that is done by the spiritual children of the devil, especially the hardened ones, the old veterans in this world (I'm thinking of some wizened yogis as they look about at the children of the west, for instance). They grin at the naivete. The continuing naivete. The innocent stupidity. Maybe we're not so innocent if we are able to act from God's will even just a 'little bit', and sometimes seeming innocent and naive is a defensive stance, but you know what I mean.


In other words, it's all around us, it's obvious, and we are asleep. We are sleepwalking through it all. And still demanding and arguing for the various illusions and fake light shows of the devil's kingdom.


The phrase 'seeing the power of Reformed theology' has to do with seeing all this, the parts in relation to the whole, and how the connection to the Kingdom of God and having the armor of God and seeing our true nature, and seeing the plan of God is all power for us. It is against human nature, or the human nature that is our fallen nature. Christianity is the only teaching that goes against our fallen nature. This is the strong connection with the Work teaching. It is against our features of false personality, against Imaginary 'I', against self-will. It's about inner re-orientation from self-will or self-centeredness to God's will (Real Will) or God centeredness. - C.

Something Sproul wrote

(This was an email...)

[Don't skim this, the paragraphs follow on each other...]

In that book Saved from What? Sproul wrote about the singular thing most of us think about. How people have a hard time seeing why they need to be 'saved'. He says people don't feel they need a fireman if their house isn't on fire. And it's the same with being saved from their 'sin'. If they don't have a vision of sin, or evil, in the world and in themselves of course they don't feel a need for a savior from it. And even further, even if they *do* see sin and evil in the world and in themselves why should they associate it with a plan by God or the Fall in the Garden or original sin, or see it in the context of it being a barrier to them getting into heaven, etc., etc.?

So there is a divide here. The faith - Christianity - is a *revealed* religion. You can't know about the plan of God from the book of nature or human nature or general revelation. You need special revelation of which the Old and New Testaments are the supreme example (technically special revelation also covers true prophetic utterances and theophanes, i.e. whenever the Second Person of the Trinity appeared to man as an angel or a pillar of fire or smoke, or most notably in His incarnation as a human being; miracles also are in the category of special revelation, but the engrafted word is special revelation par excellence now).

Atheists will explain evil and sin (or bad behavior) in evolutionary terms or whatever other terms they can think of. Most people just seem asleep to the most obvious examples of human evil and sin in history, recent history even, and in individuals, unless perhaps they experience it first hand.

The idea that God is holy and He can't or won't have beings who are not holy in His presence is not a thought that comes naturally to people either.

So it's all really sort of intellectual and derived from God's *revealed* teaching He presents in the Bible. C. S. Lewis said he became a Christian because finally it was Christianity that *explained* what he saw in the world and in himself. That is an intellectual process there. Of course he also needed the Holy Spirit in him to see that, but the process seems intellectual to us.

This is why it always seems a bit shallow or unbelievable when Christians seem to have a purely emotional take or understanding of the faith. At least to me, and I suppose a lot of people. And at the same time a purely intellectual take seems a bit dry and unreal.

THE PROCESS OF DEATH DOESN'T EVEN SEEM TO BE A SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM REGARDING GETTING THE MESSAGE. The atheist will go into that dark night as atheist as he's ever been. The sleepy person as sleepy as they've ever been. (And I'm perhaps hearing here a Bible passage that may or may not? be relevant... Let him that is holy be holy still, and him that is sinful be sinful still, and him that is in rebellion be in rebellion still, and him that is asleep be asleep still - I'm paraphrasing - ... I'm not sure what that verse - Rev. 22:11 - alludes to or means. [I know what the commentaries say, but there may be a deeper meaning there is what I'm saying.])

A parallel, I sense, to this theme of Christianity being an intellectual process of seeing the truth (or perhaps 'thought out *realization*' is a better way to say it than just 'intellectual') is the foreign-to-human-nature thing we call 'self-motivation.'

We are used to acting and thinking based on external stimuli and shocks and what not. But to form an actual thought or to articulate an actual thought solely from ourselves is not something we do very often. Mechanical shocks are the currency of sleeping beings. Conscious shocks - much different and more difficult - are the currency of awakened beings. - C.

Fear of man

"First, it is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation." - Michael Horton

First, this can't simply be ignorance on the part of Michael Horton. Although I've read enough confessions from late 20th century graduates of institutions of higher learning (like Oxford) who state that they weren't once asked to read a single work of history in all their time in said institution. But I'm going to assume Michael Horton knows this nation was not founded by Hindus or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Sikhs; and certainly not atheists or agnostics or some definition of humanists or secular humanists. I'll also assume - but this is a less confident assertion on my part - that Michael Horton knows what law is at the foundation of our Constitution and that it's not the laws of Manu.

What we see actually in Michael Horton's statement above is the *fear of man.* It is the statement of an academic theologian who does not know the fear of God alone and is clearly in bondage to the fear of man.

Again, Michael Horton just is not a serious voice

Look at this post by Michael Horton:

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/05/11/same-sex-marriage-makes-a-lot-of-sense/

It's exactly what you would expect from him. He sees a news event, a subject that Christians feel strongly about, and so he decides to write something *from an angle* where he gets to a) be his usual troll to Christians in general (he does that by his general use of 'evangelical'), and b) hide behind a plausible motive of just being smarter than the usual theologian (he does have a degree from Oxford, you know, which is, he will explain to you, in England).

None of it is serious. He even avoids taking any concrete stand on the issue one way or another. He just subtly yanks chains, trolls his usual victims and straw men, and generally has a good time with it in his usual way.

When a self-identified Christian behaves this way it's a sign they have no love for other Christians. Michael Horton sees Christians with convictions who suffer when they see the Devil winning battles around them, and because Michael Horton isn't a true believer he gets to laugh at it all and belittle it and mock it in his usual passive-aggressive way.

Look at this sentence

This is from a Wikipedia article on some ideas of a German guy named Carl Schmitt. He's not interesting, or he is not why I'm sending this, I just thought this sentence was interesting:

"Schmitt criticizes political "radicals" as basically ignorant, deluded, pseudo-messianic in mentality, and oblivious to the stark, hard knowledge of unveiled human nature, its esse, encoded in ancient theology, wherein Original Sin held central, axial place..."

"...the stark, hard knowledge of unveiled human nature, its esse, encoded in ancient theology..."

- C.

[the above was an email]

Prayer

"I fear the prayer of John Knox more than the combined armies of Europe."

- Mary, Queen of Scots

Why Michael Horton, who is not a horrible theologian, annoys me

I have to be careful because long ago I said I shouldn't come down on theologians I basically agree with 99%, so I'm not really doing that, but... I think that what annoys me about Michael Horton can be traced to his upbringing, or more his reaction to that upbringing. He apparently grew up in a fundamentalist church and environment. And then he grew, or developed, away from it. So far, so good. I'll get to what it is he does based on his past, but some of what annoys is also a degree of academic elitist silliness he possesses. But that aside. Here's my point. His reaction to his past can be seen in 1) his general tone of voice (including how he writes), and 2) his use of the straw man fallacy, which he uses to the degree of a bridge troll.

The tone of voice is as if he is always speaking to young kids, though obviously his audience is made up of young and mature adults. He obviously takes great pleasure in using this tone of voice. "I went to Oxford. That's in England." Ahh. OK. I just got a buzz cut at the barber and was drinking a bottle of Coke while in my white short sleeve dress shirt waiting for the Preacher to arrive, and I was just wonderin' where that Oxford place was.

Then the use of the straw man. Here's a typical intro to a White Horse Inn podcast: "How many times have we heard Evangelicals say, "If I just carry this cross in my pocket, and even kiss it a few times, money will rain down upon me from the sky?" "Um hm." "Yep!" His cohorts chime in. "Or what about this," Horton continues. "If I just read the Bible hard enough, and think about God hard enough, I won't have to die. I'll be taken up into the sky like Enoch or Elijah. I won't have to suffer either. Because, you know, Christianity isn't about suffering, right?" "Noooooo..." "Just tell that to Stephen!" "Ha, ha..." the cohorts again.

Wow. You convict me, Michael. I'm just as stupid as your fundamentalist uncles whose heads all exploded when they heard you got a degree from Oxford, even though they didn't know where Oxford University was. And thanks for talking to me like I'm six years old. Otherwise I wouldn't understand anything you are saying, rather than just not understanding about ninety percent, which is about as much as any lay person can approach in their understanding of what you say to begin with.

I'm not slamming Michael Horton though. I guess I'm questioning a bit his maturity and seriousness, but I'm not slamming him as a theologian.

The childhood baggage, though, and the Oxford degree... He needs to become a man, and put away childish things.

Why orthodox (small 'o') Christianity, especially Protestantism, historically rejects the general notion of mysticism

[This was an email.]

I'm not recommending these books, I havn't even read them complete, and they are not cheap, I'm just mentioning them to show that there is more involved - historically - in the subject matter that we talk about in the context of Work vis-a-vis Christianity:

Union With Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard - Dennis E. Tamburello (1994)

Calvin's Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension - Julie Canlis (2010)

At the beginning of the Tamburello book (you can use the 'look in book' feature at Amazon to see the Canlis book) he gives a lot of context of why mysticism and the Reformation seemed to be at such odds. Here's a good quote:

'According to Ritschl, "wherever mysticism is found, the thought of justification no longer retains its true significance and the key to the whole domain of the Christian life."'

I.e. the reality of sin and the need for solving the problems of guilt and pollution due to Adam's fall and the need to satisfy God's justice gets left in the dust, so that in effect sinners engaging in mystical practices try to get into God's Kingdom, or Heaven, by illegally jumping the fence.

The quote goes on to say that the preached (or read) word and biblical means of grace are seen to be transcended and get forgotten.

Remember in this email I am giving the historical reasons why mysticism has been rejected by mainstream Protestantism. Of course the term 'mysticism', as Tamburello goes on to speak about, is very ill defined, yet still it's good to see why it is rejected. Here's another quote getting at another central criticism:

"But Ritschl reserves his most incisive critique for a discussion of Bernard's notion of mystical union. The fact that Bernard's conception centers on love makes it totally unacceptable: 'For love very distinctly implies the equality of the person loving with the beloved. St. Bernard, who gave to the world the pattern of this species of piety, expressly states that in intercourse with the Bridegroom awe ceases, majesty is laid aside, and immediate personal intercourse is carried on as between lover or neighbors.' In contrast, the Reformers shifted to faith, which 'denies the possibility of equality' with God." [One note: it is weak language to say they "shifted to faith" as if that is an equal choice. Salvation is by faith alone. Love would be considered a 'work.']

One more quote to show why traditionally mysticism in general is rejected by orthodox (small 'o') Christianity:

Here are five assumptions the critics of mysticism have about mysticism in relation to justification:

(1) It is inherently individualistic. A mystical conception of the scheme of salvation "completely isolates the individual from connection with the Church."

(2) It is quietistic [I think this just means withdrawn from the world and involved in self-annihilation and contemplation of God solely to an absolute degree, it also means other things.], and therefore opposed to the ethical thrust of Reformation thought.

(3) It is elitist, because it tends to be a phenomenon restricted to the monastery.

(4) Mysticism is a form of works righteousness, particularly with respect to the various disciplines associated with the contemplative life.

(5) It is the antithesis of evangelical doctrine in that it expressly speaks of a kind of "equality" with God. Thus Ritschl comes to his conclusion that mysticism and a sound theology of justification are totally incompatible.

Tamburello then uses the rest of the book to defend St. Bernard from most of these accusations saying they are simplistic criticisms and so forth. He also shows how Calvin adopted similar mystical thought in his Institutes, though while not mentioning it explicitly. (Calvin quoted the mystic St. Bernard extensively in his Institutes.)

This is what I've seen in Calvinism, or Reformed Theology. I just think *hard truth* on-the-mark biblical doctrine is 'mystical' by nature. It effects, when it is discerned *and accepted*, internal reorientation from being man-centered to be God-centered. But that is using the word 'mystical' in a unique way and one can see how confusing the topic is when no one has a clear definition of 'mysticism.' There is also the 'ascent' aspect of mysticism that Tamborello and Canlis discuss in their books.

But anyway I just wanted to quote Tamburello's book some to show just why orthodox Protestantism has historically rejected the notion - the general notion - of mysticism or mystical practices. It gives some understanding in the Work [Fourth Way] vis-a-vis Christianity discussion. - C.

How the law drives one to Christ

I just listened to some academic theologians talking about how the law drives you to Christ, and...they didn't know the first thing about the subject. They've never experienced it. They've never been confronted by the Devil or the world or their own fallen nature. They are living in and swimming in the direction of the easy current of the world. They talk of the subject at the level of theory and it's empty.

Here is how the law drives you to Christ.

There is the pure law of God. That is what we find in the word of God.

Then there is the distorted, twisted law of God. That is what we find coming from the Devil, the fallen world (humans as a group or mass force), and our own inner, fallen nature.

This is the distinction that the academic theologians miss.

It is the distorted, twisted law of God that drives us to Christ.

It happens this way.

The moment you are regenerated by the word and the Spirit, and actually prior to that in all the ways the Spirit is working in a person bringing them to the light, even before they ever are able to read the word of God or hear it, you are in that process getting 'out of place' in the world. You are becoming a rogue cell in the body of the world. And you are now noticed.

The Devil notices you. He doesn't care about tame slaves in his kingdom who are willingly going with the easy current of the world. He notices those who are waking up. Being woken up.

The world notices you. People as a mass force notice you. They begin the process of first trying to get you back in line. When they see that won't be possible they try to destroy you usually by getting you to destroy yourself. You're like a member of a Muslim family who converts to Christianity. First they plead, coax, tempt. Then they break out the knives and the stones.

Your inner fallen nature takes notice as well. It fights for its existence. That makes it sound like you've got a foreign presence in you. You do. It's the Old Man in you.

What these three new enemies do is accuse you; shame you; abuse you; make false witness against you; but the focus is on accusing and shaming. What they are doing is *projecting* their own inherent guilt onto you. Unwittingly. But the accusing and shaming is based on the upside-down distorted notions of the law. Worldliness is good. Evil is good. Resentment is good. Who are you to go against these *holy things*? Who are you to no longer be interested in what interests us all in this world? You mock our religion. Our movies. Our activities. You have no interest in sex (though we can still see you secretly struggle with that, and we *accuse* and *shame* you).

This is the law that drives us to Christ. This entire show, this mass face, this ever-present dark force that manifests in all circles of the life of the Christian including the family life (actually most strongly in the family life).

Why does this force drive us to Christ?

Because it gives you nowhere to go. It won't allow you to even live. You can't evade it or escape it. You can't move left or right or forward or backward. It is there.

*You only have one move.*

That is going upward. You escape it by moving towards and connecting with higher influences than the world or the devil or your inner fallen nature has to offer. And ultimately it is in this direction that you are led to the word of God.

This is how you are driven to Christ by the law of God.

*Not* by the pure law of God ("Oh, but don't you understand, you can't do the law therefore you break down in tears because you can't dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's..." Yes, academic theologians, we all understand our standing in regards to the law after the fall of Adam. But that is not what drives us to *anything.* As a fallen human being - *and* - as a in-the-process of being regenerated human being *we couldn't care less about the law in that sense.* WE FEEL NOTHING about the law in that sense.)

Yet we do experience the law as it is distorted and twisted by the Devil, the world, and our inner, fallen nature.

Now, since the main thing academic theologians have to do is maintenance their vanity, they are thinking of a defense. "Well, we've been shown up pretty good here. We don't really even understand what this person has just said, yet we sense there is truth here that is foreign to us. How do we maintain our vanity and pride in the face of this situation? Here's how we'll do it. We'll say this person is just really rehearsing an age-old juvenile notion of the world being against them. You know, people are stupid and the world is stupid, and I, the sixteen-year-old, have it all figured out, but they hate me because I know more than them, etc. Yes, that is how we will see what has just been presented to us."

You do what you have to do, before you go off to eat your ice cream (because, when it comes down to it, academic theologians, what you really want is just to eat some ice cream. Or, let's put it this way, all this talk of salvation, justification, atonement, covenants, blah, blah, blah, when what you are really interested in and what you really want is a shiny new car, right?).

But if God, in His will, takes hold of your life, you'll then *know* how the law drives one to Christ.

Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham

Pondering the mark of Cain I concluded that it was something God did to Cain to disguise him from his family which he was no longer welcome in, and Adam being ruddy complected and all it seems that the mark of Cain was to make him black. Then I also connected that to the curse of Ham in various ways. Seemed to fit. Being naive I then went to Google to see if others had come to that conclusion, and I found out how ignorant and racist (and stupid for reading the Bible to begin with) I am.

So here's the punchline.

I went to the *Urban Dictionary* and looked up Mark of Cain:

1. Another word for niggers. He killed his brother Abel and was banished. Nature would no longer support him. The blackness of the nigger is the mark of cain.

OK. So far so good. So then I looked up Curse of Ham in the Urban Dictionary:

Coonery Curse

"Most believe that it comes from the Curse of Ham...Others believe it is the lack of knowledge and education inside the Black Communities...The word is derived from manditory greed and selfishness instead of selflessness..Concentrated areas with African Americans and heavy hopelessness to the point of laziness and irrational thought proccess leading to no greater progress and success....Examples of this would be as follows: Trash everywhere in the set environment including near sewage drains by homes, Having no interest in reading any books besides Sports Illustrated and Ebony,Believing the only way to "Getting Rich" is through activities that dont require much brain power like Music, Sports, and Drugs, Creating fixes for oneself including Drugs, Fancy Cars, and "spotlight" attire before having the proper financials, Always working against ones brother leading to "Crab in a Bucket" Theory, and still blaming the Caucasians for every problem or issue that happens in there lives."

So all I got from the white people was: "Racist!" "Garbage!" "We are ALL God's children, and He loves all of us, creep!!!" "We're all one color just different shades! Go back to your KKK meeting!!" "The Bible's garbage!"

Yet from the Urban Dictionary "another word for niggers" and "coonery curse."

You come to your own conclusions. Young Earth Creationists have a problem with the races, it seemeth to me. Micro evolution would need more time to create such wild differences as Caucasians and Negroids and so forth. Ham's wife is a culprit here (if you're thinking about post-flood). Yes, it's what the Mormons believe, or used to believe, but so what, you don't have to be a Mormon to be a racist, KKK, ignoramous, creep.

Gurdjieff and Christianity

[This is 'Paul of England' - his internet name I've given him, from an email exchange on Gurdjieff's relation to Christianity. G. I. Gurdjieff, along with P. D. Ouspensky, is associated with the body of teaching known as Fourth Way, or the Work; which has been appropriated by numerous cults and other groups and organizations. Those like Paul of England and myself who know Christian doctrine see the Work very differently than the common run of Work 'students', who are mainly new age types and so on.]

>>>The only thing that I didn't get - even after some googling - was the Essene reference re Gurdjieff. Since >>you said the reference was a subject that was perhaps central to this whole topic I thought I'd ask you >>to clarify for me some.

Let me head this up by saying Gurdjieff was a Christian. I'll also say that he is a complicated Christian, with many things going on. He wasn't ignorant of things either. Actually he wrote a lot on the subject and he even wrote prayers, so there is a reasonable amount of material in the primary sources and G's own writings and transcripts etc, as well third party statements. I should put in a caveat in defence of G because it may appear like I wholesale dismiss him, but on the contrary, his achievements are extraordinary and hardly imaginable.

This is a bunch of stuff off top of my head so it reads quite random, but it's all there.

The Work is something greater than the teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. I don't think that generally is an obvious belief. If you have not lived those teachings they must surely appear to belong to G. But in either case, G brought a lot of himself through the delivery. For instance, as a Christian he might have made a greater point about obedience to Christ, he might have made things purer by not introducing sufi teachings - in short he might have made more of the Christian heritage that was there. It's very odd that he didn't make any effort to lead people to Christ. However it isn't odd because as I have already said, his idea of Christian isn't exactly Biblical. He could have presented the Work as a Christian teaching (rather than just saying it was) but in many ways he excised all of that and went on to insert some distinctly non-Biblical elements. I think Mouravieff, as much as he frustrates and annoys, was right to be clear about the origins of this teaching. Although it may indeed be true that for G the teaching does go back to a pre-sand lost Egypt rather than a greek island. I think that is why G is more or less non Biblical.

So the question is why did G tell people that what he taught was the ABC's of Christianity and yet at the same time left it fairly devoid of core Biblical understanding? And certainly for me, he presented an absolutely explosive system. That's the point i began questioning G and beginning to understand this stuff. Out there in the darkness, spiritual warfare is SO real and G gets people into that territory and doesn't introduce Christ as in any way a necessity - when obviously one is doomed without. That may be regarded as irresponsible.

The reasoning is likely because G had a particular take on Christianity. This also explains why the Work is riddled with dubious unbiblical teachings and ideas. Many of these are in the wider body of G's approach. The very idea of the Harmonius Institute is an example, not heretical just it ignores some foundational facts about man's condition in a fallen state.

G's connection with Christianity is I believe real and yet mixed and more in the tradition of the Essene. It is this which allows for his peculiar position. G refers to Christ as a Divine Teacher for instance. He says that a lot. He refers to God as Our Common Father - that might be ok, but looking at his position generally I think it's probably not. He has this idea that a Christian is a perfected being, give or take, hence there are no true Christians because they can't live up to God's standards. He is off in so many directions. He believes in the idea of an original Christianity that belonged to Egypt and that what developed through the centuries was some sort of deviation so that by the middle ages it was entirely lost. He clearly despised the Catholic priesthood. There are reports of him shouting abuse in the street. Curiously he only mentions the Essene in passing, at least as far as I recall. There are two fairly clear indications that his leanings are towards the Essene. G had some fairly strong connections with the Orthodox tradition in his early years and clearly formed an important - as in deep - relationship with Bogachevsky, who later became Father Evlissi. This guy is a major influence on G. He went to Mt Athos but whatever he was after wasn't there, so he moved on to Egypt. He joined the Essene in Jerusalem. What did G say of Evlissi in Meetings with remarkable Men? "...one of the first persons on earth who has been able to live as our Divine Teacher Jesus Christ wished for us all." When admitting the Work to be Christian G was especially clear to put distance between 'his' Christianity and anything his listeners might be associating it with. So, most commonly it is 'esoteric' Christianity. Really such a terminology is meaningless if it implies some superior position to the exoteric. I think there is a danger there too that the esoteric christian is given a license that the exoteric don't have. That makes no sense. G also calls his Christianity pre-historic, originating in a different Egypt. More troubling G see's Christ as a Divine Messenger, a Sacred Messenger from our Endlessness - one of many such divines. Think about that. This is the influence of sufism seeping through because it's pretty clear that although he was a Christian he was well at ease with Islamic teachings, not just sufi (as the esoteric orders).

He travelled in Ethiopia as well as Egypt, he wrote something about the Coptics and my guess is he probably connected their heritage with the christians of prehistoric egypt because he did say the Coptic had something the orthodox and catholic had lost.

What I find interesting is he says nothing of the European Reformation or the Protestant traditions which emerged out of the middle ages. It's kind of weird really because if one is truly Biblical, then the picture of redemptive history rises to the surface as a central element in the whole story. He doesn't connect with this. He is on a completely different track. doesn't he somewhere dismiss the 'Church Fathers' as having gotten their knowledge from these prehistory christians? Does he not see the hand of God in history? Providence.

I have to be careful here not to sound like I'm gunning G. He was in many ways remarkable. Not that I would hang out with him. I'm intolerant of gurus. Another point of note - many of the intellectuals he attracted were occultists and anti-Christians, which is also telling.

G knew enough of the tradition to pretty much reject it and propose something else which when you look at it, sits closer to the gnostic schools than any version of christianity that survived gnostic meddling.

So in the end, having put much water between Christianity and his brand of Christianity G was fairly much at ease to toss in a mish-mash of eastern teachings, sufi teachings, folk teachings and some lesser known Orthodox teaching and various other bits n pieces - all drawn from Seekers after the Truth. This more or less leaves the work where it is with the majority of 4th wayers outrightly denying any connections with Christianity, and where they can accept it, remaining distanced from Biblical Christianity - and the large body of Christians in the world - favouring more palatable and wooly aberrations. Most of course embrace the sufi leanings - anything but the Christian.

[Here is my response to Paul of England on what he's written above...]

I read what you've written and in just my way of taking in things with discernment I got a sense you were very on-the-mark throughout. I have never delved into Gurdjieff's side of things like you obviously have, so it's valuable to me to read that. Like, for instance, I've never read Meetings With Remarkable Men. I think I scanned it enough to be satisfied I wasn't missing anything important. But I never gave it a dedicated read-through. Same with Beelzebub's Tales. I did go through some of his other things. And I had that Gurdjieff anthology that I thumbed through quite a lot when I was getting a total sense of each Work idea and practice and so forth.

It's true - you didn't mention it, but I'm just saying - when I connect the Work and Christianity I don't make the effort to distinguish in a clear-cut way what I myself shut out from what I see as a *core* practice in the faith. That can leave things a bit confused. The effort to do that seems overwhelming though. Not to mention when you are dealing with Christian doctrine at the hardcore level you are not even sure your audience understands that part of what you are writing. You kind of just throw everything down into words and hope the basics get across.

Your mention of a Gnostic flavor overall to G.s approach rang a sound note to me as well. I still don't dismiss the cosmological teaching of the Work though because of it's metaphor for the psychological side, and also since it is so wrapped up in different perceptions of time it is far away from biblical revelation for that reason alone because the Bible avoids that subject, but maybe subtly just alludes to it here and there. But it's like recurrence, you don't have to know about it, and when you do your situation vis-a-vis awakening/salvation is *still the same.*

It sounds like G. had the "Jesus was a great teacher/master/guru" thing, but refused to see Him as Lord and King and Savior. That common divide. Like you allude throughout what you wrote, if we just go by what he actually said and did then this is the conclusion. I.e. we can't see into his heart, but there is a good body of evidence to make some kind of conclusion.

But back to the *basic core* of the Work teaching. That is where I see gold, and, indeed, as I've stated - boldly, admittedly - a language of the Holy Spirit. That is what I see as being above G. and O. A living language if you will. Certainly a lively language. When we go back to it we can see that. But as I've articulated recently: it is *method* not doctrine; and it is for the *progressive sanctification* effort that happens on an already set foundation of regeneration and conversion.

But the telling point is, and you stated it: we sure do learn that the Work practice *puts us on spiritual battleground*, and eventually, we learn that without prayer and God we are defenseless there. - C.

[A note: I should say that my own connection to Work teaching is derived from the books with Ouspensky's name on them. I call them the 'pure springs' of the Work teaching; the ideas, practices, and goals. Also, I met Work teaching *before* I was regenerated by the word and the Spirit, and I roundly rejected it. It was only *after* (strangely enough?) I was regenerated by the word and the Spirit that I was able to connect with Work teaching. After my main Work period of several years - more than ten - I gravitated in a serious way to apostolic biblical doctrine, what is known as Calvinism, or classical Covenant - Federal - Theology, and the connections to Work teaching were remarkable. I was, at the time, a bit battle fatigued. I'd been on the spiritual battlefield a bit naked of the armor of God, though I seemed to be protected nevertheless to a good extent. After a while you are called to get more serious though. You need the armor of God. The word and Doctrine is armor of God. I wanted the real thing. AV1611 and Reformation era pure doctrine.]

What is cool (why evil of course) - AN ASSIGNMENT

[This was an email...]

A lot of discussion of 'cool' in American politics recently. I don't care about that, I want to point out that the trend in this world is always Devil-ward, no matter what. Notice that. It's like a stock market trend. You feel it, you see it, it never disappoints. You can fight it, but the very fact that you have to fight it shows you that it is the trend.

The Devil is the ruler of this world. He's defeated at the cross, but he can still do his thing via deception. And his spirit is in the majority of people on the planet. We are born with his spirit in us. Every new generation a blank slate, probably the biggest advantage the Devil has always had. That is why what took great effort to be built up culturally and civilizationally can be destroyed in *one* generation. That is also why control of education by the state is always the goal of these powers that be. Local control of education is the ideal for freedom.

Anyway, the subject of *cool.* It is cool to see the working of the supernatural realm. But the most common view of the supernatural realm is the realm of the Kingdom of Satan.

It's hard to see the workings of good angels. We can see it in our own lives, every now and then, but the big spectacular historical shows are what Satan and his spiritual children are doing on this planet. People are fascinated with evil because they can see its otherworldly aspects, especially in the big movement, big organized manifestations of evil like the Bolshevik Revolution and what followed it. It's also why there are dozens of Nazi documentaries on cable television for the last several decades. Serial murderers, real life prison documentaries, evil, evil, all things evil, gets a big audience.

I think because we are interested in the supernatural and we see the supernatural in such things. Not that humans don't contribute their own motives all on their own. Original sin and all that, but we also see the supernatural overtones and undertones.

In false religions we get glimpses of the supernatural. Satan is the ruler of this world, the 'prince' of the power of the air. Until the Second Coming this is still 'his time.' And Satan is a master of disguise and illusion. He can even appear as an 'angel of light.'

So here's the assignment. It will require Christian understanding and practice as well as Work understanding and practice: see supernatural manifestations of the Kingdom of God. See them in history. See them around you now. Discern them from the Satanic elements of the supernatural realm. - C.

Re: Im going to speak as an ocean nymph

[Ignore the title, this is from an email exchange. Some Fourthway terminology used.]

In other words, we live in the present as if we are in the heavenlies now. That is eschatological NOW presence. And that is biblical. We have to be self-motivated too, which is difficult. Much easier to be externally-motivated. Conscious shocks themselves are self-motivated, i.e. not mechanical, like breathing, and not coming from an external source. When I read Shakespeare in 2002 that was self-motivated. When I read tax forms in January of this year that was externally-motivated. That was life poking a stick at me getting me to do something I had to do.

Before, in our old nature, we lived in the Kingdom of Satan with no effort at all. Asleep, in Imaginary 'I', going with the flow. Quickened, we become alive, awakened, alert, in the Kingdom of God, though still in the flesh, so there is degree and waxing and waning of our alertness (and valuation for being in the Kingdom of God).

You don't want to slip back into molasses and disinterest and lack of valuation for what can only be seen as the ultimate greatest thing that can ever be, glorification, heaven, where the horses are swift (and may fly), and the castles and estates are grand and sunny, and angels are all about tending to your royalty, and all are royal to some degree or another, and all have everything that God has, and where the drama and heat of moving up in level of being replaces the drama and contention of good vs. evil, and where up is limitless because God's level is limitless above us. - C.

The general query

"So, this 'language' that is in the Homeric epics... What kind of language is it?"

It's higher, visual language of inner development. It's a deep language that once you have it in you you are able to see things in yourself and in the world around you that you weren't able to see prior. You needed the language to see it.

"Where can I read about this? What books have been written about it?"

The mainstream doesn't know about it. Academia is mainstream. Academia can't see it.

"Yet you claim to know about it. Where did you learn it?"

Not from a book.

"So why don't you write a book on it?"

Mystics don't write books.

How to see Hinduism, Islam, etc...

[An email...]

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Look at the verse above. Muslims don't worship Jehovah, they worship Satan who stands behind their god 'Allah.'

All the panoply (a wide-ranging and impressive array or display) of gods and goddesses in Hinduism is a display of the particular rulers of the darkness of this world that are over that part of the world.

Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia [angel over the kingdom of Persia] withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael [the archangel Michael], one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Satan and his army of demons and fallen angels set up regimes over these historic land masses. Remember I commented that this was why when the coalition forces of the west went into Iraq there was such lunatic protesting from the streets of America and Europe and elsewhere? (Hands OFF Hussein!!!) And this was because they were the more hollow souls among us channeling Satan's anger at his lands - *his lands* - being violated, like it was against some set of pre-set rules? (And any time you get that up is down, down is up, good is evil, evil is good, black is white, white is black, i.e. America is EVIL!!!, yet one of the bloodiest, most repressive police states to ever exist - Saddam's Iraq - is 'good', you are seeing the spirit of Satan manifest.)

Remember the foundational Creator/creature divide. The Bible itself says there are 'gods', but they are created beings, in their case they are fallen angels and demons. It's a light show designed to dazzle and fascinate and capture people's desires and fears and allegiance. - C.

+ + + + + + +

[Another email, pt. 2 of the above...]

One of the reasons things like Hinduism interest us is because they are glimpses into the supernatural realm.

Actual physical worship of such things is involved with material idols and all that comes with rank idol worship, superstition, sacrifice, seeking expiation or favors from the idol, etc. But the imaginative products associated with these things, i.e. the various Hindu holy books, various (and not least powerful) illustrations made throughout history, or just all the general iconography involved in the religions, these things inspire an interest that doesn't need to be coupled with actual physical worship but can deceive none-the-less, and I suppose it must lead to worship in one form or another eventually if a person stays with it.

There is also not the small matter of their being some wheat amidst all the chaff of such things. Some truth amidst all the falsity. The Devil doesn't just present 100% false shows. At least not until he gets total power, I suppose.

Mainstream Christians are quick to lump Greek mythology in with such Satanic side shows, and they are right, to some extent, but not regarding the Homeric epics. John Calvin even separated out - sanctified, if you will - the Homeric epics from the general category of Satanic influences. There is powerful language that is true within the Homeric epics, and it's why the ancient Greeks were so close to Christian understanding, and were so able to convert as a culture and civilization upon being presented with the truth. But you have to see that Greek 'religion', idols, statues, etc. is very different from the Homeric epics which really aren't even Greek in that sense. They emerged from the mists of pre-history (from even the ancient Greek perspective, see Thucydides). They are works of supreme imaginative literature. Can one get similar worthwhile content from Hindu holy books? Possibly, to some degree (actually not much, but one can get something of the truth nevertheless). But not equal to Homer.

Remember, the reformers were classical humanists, Renaissance men, very familiar with influences such as the Homeric epics (and very favorable to them, see Zwingli for an extreme case).

Anytime you can get a glimpse into the supernatural realm it is potentially good, if you are a true soldier of Christ. If you are still in the nursery living in the fear of man yet calling yourself Christian then you aren't ready for much of anything. - C.

Credentialed village idiots

This post was written by an unregenerate credentialed village idiot with no discernment or valuation for truth. No ability to see truth. And - more to the point even - no ability to discern truth in great literature to begin with. No ability to value great literature. Someone who thinks any notion of great, inspired literature is nonsense, because they can't see it. C. S. Lewis said to these academic types: (paraphrased) Give me some evidence you know what myth is before you talk about myth in the word of God. Give just maybe even a little evidence that you've read anything other than works in your supposed specialty. Show some evidence that you're not a shallow, credentialed village idiot as you so appear to be.

Peter Enns really has no interest in scientific theories

This post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/enns-on-adam.html

makes the assumption that Peter Enns disbelieves Genesis 2 because he believes the Theory of Evolution (peace be upon it) is true.

This is a wrong assumption. In an exchange with Enns it became very clear he neither understands the issues of Evolution nor has any curiosity towards understanding them or the arguments against it all. He's using the word evolution the way atheists use the word evidence.

Peter Enns is a straight up atheist. He's playing the John Shelby Spong game without the dog collar.

Anger a paedo-baptist, talk about regeneration

Just listened to three or four paedo-baptists justifying their position:

http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc223/

It sounded like Roman Catholics trying to justify the various points of the Tridentine creed. I.e. like people with no biblical warrant trying to lawyer up a defense for their pet doctrine being biblical.

What is the main thing that they avoid like the plague? Regeneration. In fact, they will get angry and 'clear the room' if anybody talks of regeneration. They don't realize that only the unregenerate get pissed off when anybody mentions regeneration.

Paedo baptists *despise* the fact that regeneration is monergistic and solely effected by the word and the Spirit and not by man and ritual. They will 'give' God His sovereignty in creation and providence, but they will 'withhold' from God His sovereignty in grace.

These are unregenerate fools. Notice the academic rhetoric, the academic fear of man, the academic juvenile intellectualism and vanity. Only self-styled elites and elitist environments can maintain such falsehood and stupidity. Put a street Calvinist in their midst and they become mocking hipsters suddenly with something 'better' to go off to. These are not broken, Bible-believing Christians. These are fools who never left the shadow of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they want a shock to their system (they don't and will avoid this suggestion) read Calvin's 40th sermon on Ephesians. He echoes early Zwingli in basically saying baptism is for 'stupid people' who need the visual parable. He speaks of dumb priests who think 'water' is effectual, etc. This is Calvin at the end of his life, obviously no longer worried about the contingencies of war and playing to a dumb, recently formerly Roman Catholic population.

Regeneration is the *main thing*, pilgrims. The proud unregenerate not only want to play ritual forever, but they are front and center in the movement to corrupt the living word of God. They *know* what regenerates. Just as the Roman Catholic Church knew what regenerates, back in the very dark days of their power.

The Roman Catholic Church called people to come and be baptized all day and all night, but, upon penalty of torture and death, they kept the living word of God away from those very same people.

That is called a clue, paedo-baptists.

Alan Kurschner's due for his own Wikipedia page

What do you think God thinks about people who self-identify as Christian and spend their time trying to authenticate the word of God as being corrupted?

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5047

For the record, the 'conclusion' this great scholar has come to is in no way supported by the collective voice of Great Atheist Bible Scholars of the last 300 or so years. This great scholar though is taking a great burden upon himself on this issue. Perhaps he will enter a 'conference' of similar great Bible scholars one day, in a conference room of a Holiday Inn, and heroically, though with visible and weary self-aware modesty, take to the sound system and - with sorrow for the naive sort - decree this result of his burden of genius.

From a field study of infant baptists

Baptism with a Head Covering?

My wife and I are convinced that women are to wear head coverings in public worship, as per 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Several months after our first daughter was baptized, we came to the conclusion that there was no warrant to suppose that it would not apply to females of all ages (including our baby girls), as well.

So now, our second daughter will be baptized this coming Sabbath. Should she be baptized with the head covering on? Or should we take it off immediately before she is baptized?

This post and query drew a lengthy string of comments showing concern and thoughful speculating regarding the issue.

How does one achieve union with Christ?

How does one achieve union with Christ?

This question was put up on a Christian forum. No member of the forum could answer him. The questioner states he does not refer to salvation, but how does one effect being in closer union with Christ in our everyday lives.

In biblical language the answer is: by being awake (watchful) and loving our enemies.

Oh, what is this?!? Systematic theologies don't speak of these things! Why, among churchians there is a silent agreement that we don't speak of such things. Yes, we read of them in what is called the New Testament, but we are in silent agreement that we don't speak of them. Because we don't understand them, frankly. And because we tell ourselves that such things are the cause of 'enthusiasm' which is wicked. Therefore there are wicked teachings in the New Testament thus we need to have a good, sound, healthy *fear of man* and police that fear of man and not speak of such wicked things.

That is why nobody at the so-called Puritanboard could answer the question.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on atheism

Regarding atheism, Solzhenitsyn declared:

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

- Edward E. Ericson, Jr., "Solzhenitsyn – Voice from the Gulag," Eternity, October 1985, pp. 23–4 (via Wikipedia)

An email thread

One thing that needs to be clear is when I began to learn biblical doctrine I gravitated towards Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, simply because it was the most biblical. You have to understand that there are different schools of theology, most all of them incorporating tradition of man or ideas that water down what the Bible says, or that negotiate down biblical doctrine to what man's fallen nature demands. Reformed Theology doesn't do that. You have to decide, am I a Bible-believing Christian or am I some other kind of Christian. My view is why be something half-assed? Something watered-down? Anyway, it's the Spirit in us that gives us not only discernment for the truth but ability to value it.


So when I learned Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, I began immediately to see how the Work matched with it. Which is to say I began to immediately see how the Work not only is a Christian teaching, but a very on-the-mark Christian teaching.


What's demanded of man in the Work is what is demanded of man in biblical teaching and commands.


Much of this takes place for a Christian at very deep levels of their being, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit, the word of God, and doctrine that is eventually seen and accepted.


The Work is a method then for when the individual already has been born again, ideally. Temporally all of this can be a mush because much of it is influence that is breaking into time above you. It is not linear time dependent. Even the staid Westminster Confession of Faith says the Holy Spirit works when and where He will. He can effect you at any part of your time because He is God and He is operating from eternity.


You have to picture large being...a person of big or large being. You see this in the Old Testament. Joshua, David, etc. You see it also in depictions of heroes and even gods and goddesses in the Homeric epics. When you think in these terms your own being, your own circumstances which you may be very pleased with and comfortable with, is seen for what it is. And when put up against real, serious evil what do you have to be able to *stand.*? - C.


From: q
To: c. t.
Cc: S
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Some recent insights on the Work, two, in fact
This is interesting stuff. Obviously I came through battlefield Work experiences before I found meaning in the Puritans, Reformers (Calvinists) and in many ways the Bible too (I think that is true even though I completed my last Genesis to Revelation reading 6 years ago now - wow, that long!) [This is another mystery, how things don't tie up in chronological time]. At that point, whilst the systemised language isn't quite there in the same way that Ouspensky put it together for the Work, I still found huge depths and heights to their work (ie Puritans & Reformers) - and I don't think they can at all be summarised as being at best 'mesoteric'.

They are coming at you from a purely Biblical landscape with no adulteration of eastern influences (mysticism), there's none of the Gurdjieff "I'll seduce your daughters whillst you practise some self-observation" It is purely about God's Will. The Work is hard territory but in some senses it is no where near as fierce, uncompromising and 'at war' with our fallen natures as the Bible and those who adhere to it in the measures which Calvin and others understood it.

In fact, in declaring the Work esoteric Christianity I sense G entirely missed the point. We cannot posssibly talk of Christianity as if the esoteric level is more important, valuable, intelligent or what have you, than the exoteric. That is dumb stupid. Most likely it was said for a twofold purpose, namely to attract wealthy intellectual westerners of a Christian background who might consider the exoteric beneath them, but as stated to put mileage between exoteric (but look at Spurgeon, a commonplace preacher who was on fire with the Word) and esoteric levels.

The greatness of the best of the puritans and reformers is that one is a Christian (or not). Saved or lost. And you can be lost no matter how you study the 'esoteric' teachings.

Ps 109:
26 Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy:
27 That they may know that this is thy hand: that thou, LORD, hast done it.

Calvin and the Puritans did just that.

On 26 March 2012 11:52, c. t. wrote:

In case you just skimmed my replies (because this subject finds you at your current limit), at least read this part:

"On-the-mark biblical doctrine (Calvinism) does what the Work wants you to do. See your own nothingness. Re-orientate from being man-centered (false personality) to being God-centered (Real I). Liking what 'it' doesn't like. It is true mystical doctrine.

Nicoll is a genial influence and on-the-mark, for the vast part of what he wrote, and a very valuable.

- C.

ps- I can see the detour that you are seeing. A particularly dark and heavy detour backward or sideways. But I'm not guilty of it. Anyway, it always seems dark and heavy when you are taking on yourself, really seeing yourself (if you don't have a feeling of horror you're not really seeing yourself), but that's not to say we are serial murderers or living in a hell of mental derangement or in a hell of cultural chaos and violence. We don't want to fool ourselves, though, or be naive.

pps- Talking about Calvinism and Puritanism doesn't mean you have to become a Puritan. Those terms mean apostolic biblical doctrine.

ppps- I think it's a fair doctrine to say you need to keep things light. Jesus said, after all, My burden is light. One doesn't need to be a gloomy warrior. Or be heavy-laden. Walking in a dark landscape. The world has given Calvinism and the Puritan these impressions. Maybe they were earned in some cases, to some degree, but life is hard in most eras and all that.

From: S
To:
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: Some recent insights on the Work, two, in fact
I feel the Work sources always attempted to distance themselves from any mainstream Christian viewpoint, by declaring the Work as esoteric Christianity.

Calvinism, Puritanism – all this is at best the Mesoteric level. Give me Nicoll any day over those sources.


From: q
Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012 10:20 AM
To: c. t.
Cc:
Subject: Re: Some recent insights on the Work, two, in fact

Nicoll and his line of students were definitely shifting towards a more New Age tendency. Despite this Nicoll's contribution was huge and significant. Gurdjieffians used to say N regurgitated G. I never got anywhere with G. I think he was too asiatic in some way for my liking. I doubt i would touch him in real life. He played the guru, either intentionally or otherwise but it would be too much for me. Charlatan or not. Besides, he followed his penis.

Thankfully that miserable Russian wine bibber put a couple of good books down.
On 24 March 2012 23:51, c. t. wrote:

That would be 'five solas'. Very necessary to proofread when pecking on tiny, virtual keyboards. - C.



------------------------------
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:45 PM PDT c. t. wrote:

>
>I recently downloaded a kindle version of Nicoll's Commentary and was reading through it recently. I was struck by the level of the material. Not that it isn't very useful and valuable as a source for Work ideas and practices, but he comes across as more thin to me. One area is when he uses the Bible it is clear that he doesn't know the underlying reality. For instance the fact of sin - its guilt and pollution - and our inability to do anything about it. It's like he's still a Jungian and hasn't experienced regeneration, and is just still on the surface of things like an academic unaware of his condition at the deep, Biblical level. I.e. he quotes Jesus like he'd quote Confucius, as if salvation wasn't the pressing issue.
>
>The impression also gave me a strengthened sense of the power of on-the-mark Biblical doctrine. The Work as method, from the pure springs, along with the Bible and Reformation era Biblical doctrine (five solas, doctrines of grace, classical Covenant - Federal - Theology) is 'terminal' understanding and practice.
>
>- C.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:16 PM PDT c. t. wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm not near my books now, but the subject is not the vertical philosophy, theory, practice. The subject is how to see the Work vis-a-vis Christianity. Work as doctrine would contaminate Biblical doctrine. Yet Work as method syncs with Biblical doctrine; specifically in the stage and practice of progressive sanctification. I don't recall seeing this distinction in any of Ouspensky's or Gurdjieff's books, but if it's there somewhere it wouldn't surprise me because it's not something I would have been looking for back when I was really going through those books. Only when you become sensitive to Biblical doctrine does it come up. - C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 9:22 AM PDT W wrote:
>>
>>
>>G. is quoted in Fragments (chap 15. starts mid way page 308 for 4-5
>>pages) on this subject and exclaims a number of times that its not
>>practical knowledge for them at that time.
>>I've found Nicoll's writing very theoretical and for that it doesn't
>>leave as large of an impression as say O's work which is very
>>essential and core knowledge.
>>
>>W.
>>
>>Saturday, March 24, 2012, 3:12:59 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> There have been some very foundational insights regarding the Work
>> in recent threads. Two of them are:
>>
>>
>> 2. Along the same lines is this insight: I think it was
>> providential that I saw that edition of the Oxford Companion to
>> English Literature in a new used bookstore I stopped to look at. It
>> was only $2.99 too which made it enticing to buy. That it had
>> entries on G. and O. was strange too. But that it brought to my
>> attention that Gurdjieff considered his knowledge to be more
>> *method* than *doctrine* is a big thing to know when you are trying
>> to see the Work vis-a-vis Christianity. I was recently reading
>> Nicoll, and I think he may have been guilty of introducing more of a
>> sort of doctrine into the teaching (such as making entry into the
>> conscious circle of humanity the goal, unless he flat out meant that
>> as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God which I don't think he did).
>> But the pure springs of the Work teaching, Ouspensky's books, really
>> keep any attempt at doctrine out of it and focus on method. I never
>> thought of the distinction before, and I think it is a big
>> distinction and very clarifying for what the Work actually is,
>> especially when you combine the insight with the first one above. - C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>> W mailto:
>>
>>
>

Doctrine

When doctrine starts to give you the impressions of armor you'll see what doctrine is. Then the old books will look like different parts of plate armor and weapons. And you'll be able to discern the true armor from the ill-made or just fake armor. The old books and the doctrine in them also carry impressions of the mysteries of the ages. And Biblical mysteries are truth. Often the books don't venture as deep as we'd like them to, but the basics of doctrine are strong and complete and can be meditated upon for deeper impressions.

Sanctification made easy 3

Part two is here.

In this subject of sanctification then you will see there is this subject of 'features'. Features of our fallen nature, and features of our new nature.

When we cultivate God's will (rather than self-will) we are cultivating features of our new nature that respond to God's will.

Also, to cultivate God's will we have to mortify the features of our old, fallen nature.

So this subject of 'features' is big. Obviously we have to identify these features. This is where mainstream Christians fall short. The New Testament is full of teaching on these various features, but it is ignored, just as the subject and practice of spiritual warfare is ignored by systematic theologians. It's a great hole that lends credence to the belief that there indeed are different levels of Christianity. As much as that mere possibility really incenses the church set. I'm an order (or school) Christian not a church Christian, by the way. If you feel like mocking that I understand. Though I must point out I am in the invisible Church of which Christ is King.

So what are these features in question? You have to identify them. The features of your fallen nature will have control of you until you shine light on them and identify them. They are very strong when you are ignorant of them and asleep to them. As well the features of your new nature will be unused and uncultivated until you identify them and make efforts to cultivate them.

I've listed them on this blog, and nobody cares, so be it (here's one very concise list). Find these features in the New Testament. You're just screwing around until you do.

Sanctification made easy 2

Part one is here.

Another way to see what effort is like in progressive sanctification is to see it in the category of will. Acting from self-will vs. acting from God's will.

Self-will is bottom up will. God's will is top-down will. God's will is a descent-of-the-dove type of action. Self-will is a strenuous 'will power' type of action.

So the question is: how do you cultivate a 'descent of the dove' type of will?

1. By having the living word of God in you complete. The word of God not only is (or can be) turned into real understanding but it is (or can be) turned into real will as well.

2. By prayer. When you pray to be guided by God's will, and you pray to be able to mortify your old, fallen nature, and you pray to be able to have and to use the features of your new nature, your new heart, you are in effect cultivating God's will.

3. By waiting on the Lord. Our fallen nature reacts *fast* so that our new nature can't take control of us from above. There is great folk wisdom in the 'counting to ten' thing before speaking or acting in a wrought up situation or event. (But if you're going to indulge the features of your fallen nature anyway you can count to a million and it won't work. In fact, you'll just create more of a pressure cooker environment within you. Really the key is observing yourself, valuing acting from God's will, and extending your limits. But now I'm going to have to give you the whole template which I won't do. Allow the Holy Spirit to guide you.)

4. By fearing God alone and not man. (This is a big one.)

There that's four points. That's a good, solid foundation to build from.

Just discern between bottom-up self-will and top-down God's will.

Sanctification made easy

This thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/timothy-kauffmans-recent-critique-brown-tchividjian-keller-73282/

shows how confused the church set is on the subject of sanctification. Here it is simplified:

Justification is monergistic.

Definitive sanctification is monergistic.

Progressive sanctification is synergistic.

Glorification is monergistic.

So, why is progressive sanctification synergistic? Because once regenerated you have *ability* to make efforts; and not only that, but your efforts are emanating from a new heart, so they have worth that your efforts as an unregenerate person didn't have. You are in effect an apple tree that is producing apples (only the quality of the apples you produce varies, so your effort is to produce high quality apples). What that metaphor means is you are doing what a regenerated individual does, producing good works, the fruit of your salvation not the cause; yet at the same time there is degree in the quality not only of our good works but in our level of being overall, i.e. we still struggle with our sinful nature, and to mortify our sinful nature, even after regeneration. We also struggle to bring to life within us features of our new nature.

One person in that thread speaks of 'reliant-on-God' effort. I think it was J. I. Packer who coined the term God-reliant effort to describe progressive sanctification. Maybe he got it somewhere else, it's a pretty simple phrase. I recall reading it in his Concise Theology, which in the chapter on sanctification is a good place to start to understand sanctification.

Remember: once regenerated you are able to sin and *able to not sin.* Prior to regeneration you are able to sin and unable to not sin. And to fill that out, Adam in the Garden was able to sin, able to not sin; and in the state of glorification we are simply unable to sin, which is a new state.

Big picture

Reading in one of the prophets how the priests were corrupt and realizing how the vast majority of people have no interest in or valuation for God and hence can't be trusted by God......

What I'm saying is so few seem to be truly regenerated and in tune with God, and in fact are in that state where they want to be coaxed and begged to come into the light and even then they reserve the right to change their mind an do and play hard to get when they're not outright hostile to the truth...all along giggling and mocking and affecting evil stares to show how powerful and cool they are in their own worldly domain...

What I'm saying is God is fishing men and few they be. I know God can trust me. I don't see many in the world I can say the same about.

To have that new heart, the understanding, the independence to fear God alone and not man. How rare this is.

We're fished up out of the ocean and the ocean still exists, until it doesn't. Until there are seas no more.

The illusion of difference regarding the people and beliefs of the world

One illusion the world has that prejudices it against the exclusive claims of Christianity is the illusion of all the world's people and world's beliefs being *different.*

They aren't different. All the world's people are descended from Adam, and from Noah's sons after the flood. They were scattered, yes, but they don't have different beginnings. They are the same in origin.

And all the world's beliefs aren't different either. They are all born of the same rebellion to their Creator. The same fallen demand to be able to justify themselves through their own works, whatever their religion or religious views have come to. They all share the same Standard that has been deviated from.

So yogi, fakir, Hindu priest, Buddhist monk, witch doctor, shaman, Mullah, Rabbi what have you...they aren't all different. They are all very similar. They are all sons and daughters of Adam, and they all share the same fallen human nature, which has fallen from the same Standard.

Some pieces of music are really special

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIHcK7Qjw6Y

If you can't listen to this without getting impatient you probably can't read the Bible either. Provoke your limits; extend your limits...

When anybody dies

When someone dies, anyone, it should, if anything, give people the realization that our days are numbered and only activities that truly develop us in an *essential* way should get the vast majority of our attention...like, stop being shallow and desultory in your reading, Christians; get the word of God *engrafted* into your heart - fused into memory, will, and understanding - via a stated goal of complete readings; and get on-the-mark biblical doctrine into understanding to where it becomes the actual armor of God. Be systematic about it, and don't keep going over old ground, and be complete about it as well. There is such a thing as terminal understanding of ultimate things.

"Somebody has died...how do we play games with it?"

It is one of the creepier marks of fallen human nature when a community or person talks publicly about the death of a person but holds back information on how they died. Especially when the person was relatively young.

What the creepy people are doing is this: "I have information you don't have, and I am going to tease you with it. Don't you feel teased now, hmm? Ha, ha."

And this: "I'm going to tempt you to have to *ask* me (us) how the person died. Then we are going to slam you sanctimoniously by suggesting that such personal details and salacious curiosity are out of place and that we should be remembering the person in respect. Thank you." Then, with a silent: "Tee hee hee!"

For survival itself it's rather natural to want to know how people die. In other words, so that we avoid the same damn thing.

The PuritanBoard lives up to its reputation. Apparently a moderator sent out a private note on the death of a long time contributor (no doubt including cause of death, unless it was asphyxiation while masturbating) then now has posted a public post about the person leaving out the cause of death, knowing very well non-member readers would be teased by the act. Way to be creepy even in the context of somebody's death.

By the way, the PuritanBoard member died of asphyxiation (self-strangling, in a closet) while in the act of masturbation. We just have to go on that until they see fit to satisfy our salacious curiosity.

Curt response to a dispensationalist

[The dispensationalist started off by saying covenant theologians are always saying, "You guys just don't understand us."]

This is silly. It is Dispensationalists who need to resort to such exasperation. Covenant theologians from the Westminster Divines to Louis Berkhof were quite capable of making themselves understood.

I'll use a sports analogy. Dispensationalism is like Arena Football trying to get attention by pretending to be at the same level as the NFL. I.e. it's not a serious debate. When you learn Covenant Theology it is an inwardly-directed study. We are *moved* to learn it and get parts in relation to the whole understanding of it. We end up reading and studying influences such as Vos and Bavinck and the Westminster Divines and Berkhof and Turretin and on and on all set against the raw material of the word of God which we have as foundation; then Dispensationalists (Arena Football enthusiasts) come along and tell us we need to read *Ryrie*. Do you see the difference in scale here? The difference in seriousness?

There is too much at stake for me to even debate Dispensationalists. I stand upon the Pactum Salutis as my very Constitution and legal standing in the Kingdom of God. I see it, I understand it, I was never approached by anybody to learn it (unlike Dispensationalism), but was guided and inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit Himself to learn it and get understanding of it.

Arena Football may be entertaining for some people, but biblical doctrine is *armor of God.* With armor you want the real thing. The Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God are all too serious a reality to fool around with anything less than the real thing; with anything less than the real armor of God.

Reading Peter Enns and his followers and his peers is like seeing and feeling the sickening manifestation of hell itself

After again reading Peter Enns' blog, and then following links and reading some of his peers, I think the one thing that is most striking in it all is how incredibly unself-aware and juvenile and intellectually mediocre the academics involved are. Not only that but the culture of specialists in academia, how they grant to specialists in other fields a kind of glass-eyed worship (as long as it is returned of course), and how non-serious it all is. In politics we've been taken over by village idiots, but academia seems to be in beyond-village idiot realm.

It is actually sickening being in an environment of such people. I was going to say 'self-identified Christians' who reject or can't see the truth, but at this point I'm not even sure they would identify as Christian.

Again, the analogy I used before of the person who is convicted to a term in prison. Prison guards see the phenomenon. The convict doesn't realize right away that he is no longer in control. He's not awake to the fact that the state *can* lock him up and not let him out. He's got a grin on his face, he jokes with the guards, he greets his new home (cell) humorously, "Hey, I guess we're here, eh?" They escort him in and then leave and shut the thick metal door and lock it. It still hasn't gotten through to the inmate that he is no longer in control. Dinner time rolls around and he's wondering how he gets someone's attention that he needs to go to his favorite restaurant.

Peter Enns and his fellow reprobate (actually vain and juvenile to the point of embarrassment) liberal 'Christian' academics still think they are in control. Who's stopping them? They can mock God and God's people and dictate from the ivory tower and get angry and throw their little credentialed lightning bolts and write books for children and teach in putative conservative seminaries and on and on. Why not? They are in control. God surely isn't, right?

This is why hell exists.

Peter Enns is now going public with his anger

I found this comment to a blog post on the subject of the historicity of Adam to be generally revealing:

"Reasons 9 and 10 are the real reasons behind the anxiety in Reformed circles about the Adam debate. [...] The whole covenant theology apparatus collapses without a concrete man named [Adam], and then the Bible becomes a mystery again instead of an “owner’s manual” that you’ve exhaustively explained."

[The reasons 9 and 10 that he references are these:
"9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together.

10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together."]

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/02/07/reasons-to-believe-in-a-historical-adam/

See, the guy who wrote the comment resents that the Bible can actually be understood in a parts-in-relation-to-the-whole way. Because this forces him to accept what the Bible says rather than plastering his own meaning onto (or into) the Bible's mystery.

And he, and others like him, are currently using science (Peace Be Upon It) as their Trojan Horse. Only this horse is not filled with Danaan heroes. It's filled with intellectual village idiots with a sense of empowerment derived from the recent popularity of books of very aggressive, militant - and really stupid - atheism.

Darwinian evolution has been dying an agonizingly slow death since Darwin himself expressed disappointment in the fossil record regarding it giving any evidence for his theory. DNA arrived, and the evolutionists got really scared, started to run for the tall grass, then realized they could just pretend that it supported a belief in macro evolution (i.e. the belief that fish turn into race horses). Now lab work with genome theory grants has been taken up by the same village idiots as 'proof' that fish do, indeed, turn into race horses (and hence also proving that Bach's music is no better or worse than Radiohead's third album). The fact that genes behave in a mysterious manner that they can't figure out (i.e. it's like they're *alive* or something) is something they are going to have to just set on a shelf for now.

But let's end with a point about 'scale' and psychopathology. Peter Enns has recently been getting publicly angry that anyone would even think to write a *blog post* suggesting his view about how the biblical Adam is not historical, and how evolution changes how we have to read the Bible, etc. is wrong. In other words, Peter Enns is now publicly showing his developing psychopathology. One trait of this, in a Devil-addled unbeliever with a quasi-Christian academic degree, is the same trait you see in other walks of life namely an inability to discern *scale.* In Peter Enns' case it's his inability to see the psychosis of thinking his little collective blog posts just totally decimate all theology of all eras of human history prior to the birth of Peter Enns. Yes, aiding him in his belief that he is a big mountain and all of history before him is a series of little mole hills is his great weapon he calls Evolution. (It became evident in an exchange with him that he didn't even know the distinction between micro and macro evolution, which pretty much gave away he really doesn't want to know *too much* about Evolution but just wants to use it as a means to exalt himself above all history and all peoples and all theology from all eras prior to his birth.)

And to what end? He's full up to his inane academic gills with vanity and pride and self-will, and he is in rebellion to his Creator and values the self-revelation of his Creator (the Bible) about as much as he values any book with counter-arguments against macro evolution (he doesn't think they exist...he references the name 'scientist' the way some Roman Catholics reference the name 'Pope').

Where is Peter Enns now? He's living the normal life of a typically shallow and vain academic. Where will he be in the future? Like, when all the 'vitalism' in his genes disappears? Where? Peter, where will you be? You won't be in control like you think you are now. The belief that they are still in control is the last thing an inmate loses as they are being processed and introduced to the heavy, locked door of their penitentiary cell. And hell is much worse.

People want their bad doctrine, and you can't take it away from them

Ha, ha, the Reverend is now experiencing what many of us experience on a regular basis, on his own forum as well. The Reverend Buchanan (http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/escondido-theology-72176/#post928586) writes an eminently on-the-mark, well-written post that pretty much should set everybody in the thread straight, and what happens? The spirit of bad doctrine takes over and an otherwise low key Reverend (Winzer) writes a response claiming that the Reverend Buchanan's post will cause all Christians to be slaughtered all over the planet and disappear. So, Reverend Buchanan, welcome to the ranks of Christians who can only step back and scratch their head, raise an eyebrow over one eye, adopt a bemused grin, and wonder how actual wisdom well-spoken means pretty much nothing when the spirit of bad doctrine has got hold of people. People will counter Jesus Christ Himself. To His face. WRONG!

The PuritanBoard on their way to becoming the BarthianBoard

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/what-whole-union-christ-debate-72573/

Mainly because they can't discern a rather obvious attack on justification by faith alone. Like the slow hand of a clock, no visible movement yet movement, they traverse over to neo-orthodoxy. They couldn't have their theonomy, so they're going to have *something*, damn it. "And by God it's going to undermine something BIG! You just watch..."

So they've slipped under the influence of some rather shallow Ph.Ds and Ph.D candidates over at Westminster Philadelphia who have found relief from Reformed orthodoxy by chanting, "Union with Christ! It's all union with Christ! What? You disagree? O, brother, can't you see the light? What could you possibly have against union with Christ?!? Cast off that burden of the so-called 'five solas' and its ugly twin sister the so-called 'doctrines of grace'! Cast it off! It's all union with Christ! Just look how much we have to explore now! There's, like, eight hundred and sixty-five volumes of Church Dogmatics! Come on! We're free now!!"

This is truth. Suck it up. Apply it.

"...your argument seems to be founded upon the idea that God works through the Word to an individual in a vacuum. Union with Christ does not occur in a vacuum, it occurs in the sphere of the visible church." Spoken by a pastor of a Baptist church.

Got Romanism?

In this Christian's experience (oh, a word they hate) it occurs by the means of the word of God with the presence of the Holy Spirit. Your local 'church' can go to hell. And probably will.

And let's talk about your little 'visible' church. It respects persons (which God hates). It polices a fear of man (which God says a follower of Christ doesn't do but fears God alone). It puts a man in the place of the only Mediator between God and man Jesus Christ (yeah, there's a reason God tells us the only Mediator between God and man is Jesus Christ). It talks, and talks, and talks about anything and everything from its 'pulpit' but refuses (with secret delight) to proclaim the actual word of God pure and without asinine commentary from a fool with a piece of paper from something called a 'seminary' who doesn't know his ass from his elbow regarding the faith and the word of God and couldn't discern the truth if you put a gun to his fat head and doesn't value discerning the truth because it doesn't give him worldly pleasure to discern the truth.

Oh, what else? Oh, yeah, their little 'church' is more worldly than a house of prostitution, and that's how you like it, because, you know, you make yourself, a good upstanding 'family man', the standard. You're good you see because you slumped your little wife and had children, and we all know that the Bible says the faith is *all about family and marriage and backslapping at picnics when you get another one in the oven*, right? Because Jesus had eight kids and always talked about his wife and how the faith was all about family and mother and father and wife and kids, right? Put your corrupt, Romanist Bible down. Get out of your little devil-occupied building you call a 'church', get down on your chubby little knees, and ask God for forgiveness for all the time you've wasted and perverted keeping people away from the faith and the word of God. Enough with you useful idiots of the devil. Enough with you.

A good King James Bible site

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

Look at the links at the bottom of the page, there is also a mirror site for the KJV in regular spelling.

Just a simple site. For me, different font for an online KJV is something.

Just read Psalm 24 in the old spelling. It gave me impressions of how land on this planet use to be connected. It gave me impressions of how current scientific pretension in attempting to overthrow the Creator is such a small thing against the Reality of the Creator and how reading that psalm 24 gave me impressions of God as Science, real science, though that sounds silly, you know what I mean.