Making biblical and faith language practical

This is a central passage of Scripture, easy to forget:

1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Not many wise-men-wise-after-the-flesh nor mighty men are called (regenerated) by the Word and the Spirit. But the foolish and the weak, and those considered base and those despised are called. This so as to confound the 'wise' and mighty and so that no flesh can glory in anything but the Lord.

It's this language though I was looking for to make a comment:

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption...

This is an example of biblical or faith language that assumes greater knowledge. Otherwise it is very non-practical language in terms of delivering practical meaning.

Christ Jesus is our wisdom. OK. What does that mean? He is also our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

What these words 'carry' is the whole of the biblical message, the history and mechanics of redemption. This verse is similar:

1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

What this is saying is once we know all of the history and mechanics of redemption, and we are regenerated, we don't need to know anything else, practically speaking. I mean, in terms of ultimate things.

This can be a clue the Holy Spirit is giving believers about how to arrange things internally to remember what is most important, and always have it to mind. Start with Jesus Christ and how he is our wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. What is behind all that.

How He is our wisdom means not only knowing of the plan of God and what Jesus Christ, the second Adam, accomplished, but what He teaches throughout Scripture.

This is why I harp on Federal Theology and the plan of redemption and the mechanics of it, systematic theology, all that. We need that understanding as background to know all. I was listening to a theoretical physicist today and noticing how his world is disintegrating in terms of old paradigms falling apart (mysterious dark matter replacing atoms as foundational building blocks; knowing things are true that they can't prove; the former, dark matter, being defined, and using the word 'ghostly', in a way to suggest the spiritual world which is real but invisible; the latter echoing faith itself). Then listening to his speculating on all and everything and in my mind seeing how biblical understanding explains it all and really seeing, against that worldly, atheistic science-as-authority, and the silliness of their constantly changing paradigms yet continuous claiming to be authoritative in all they say, etc., how it is the 'wisdom' of the flesh against God's 'foolishness'.

Yet to bring the biblical language into practical focus we need to know the whole and be able to see the parts in relation to the whole. Until then you don't take, for instance, the Paul quote above seriously:

1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

You say, um, OK. I know it is authoritative, and as a believer I hew to it, but it *is* awfully fuzzy. Well, get the history of redemption and the mechanics of redemption down in understanding (Federal Theology) and you will then know what is referenced in Jesus Christ in that verse.

[This was originally an email.]

Beautiful song, listen to it a hundred times

Here.

Liberals, conservatives, etc.: basics for politically naive seminary graduates

True conservatives are 'classical liberals.' What are called 'liberals' today tend to be more in the direction of socialists.

Classical liberals, like the Founding Fathers, tend to highly value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Socialists tend to value collectivism rather than individual liberty, and lording it over people in various ways.

Classical liberals tend to base basic rights in God and the image of God in man. What God gives man can't take away.

Socialists tend to base basic rights in man alone, and what man gives, man can take away.

Classical liberals favor free market economy.

Socialists favor command economies.

The history of either type of economy is very stark and can be accessed by anyone with interest and motivation to learn about it.

All economies are hybrid, but each will have a center-of-gravity in either free market, command, or tradition. (A tradition economy is 'you do what your father does, and military or religion are the only other roads open to an individual other than that.')

Free market economies require a lot of foundational ground work to have been done. Consistent rule of law, enforcement of contracts, a mobile work force (lines of transportation). Educational opportunity. Basic property rights and individual rights, a basic level of good faith behavior, etc.

A command economy devolves into 'strongest monkey' at the top, police-state enforcement of populations, committees of humans determining the price and demand and so on of goods and services, which isn't possible hence incredible ineptness and waste and inefficiency covered over by state-run educational and media propaganda and police intimidation. Etc.

Many people don't like the hurly-burly of living in a free market society. They have slower metabolisms, so to speak. They are confused by it and can't see how to get ahead or what they have to do. This is understandable. But it really only takes the small percentage of movers and shakers, entrepreneurs, inventors, discoverers, creators, builders, high energy types, visionary types to set up things for the less energetic to fall into place within and be able to make a sound living. Socialists attack those people and make it as difficult for them to do their thing as possible. Punitive taxes, abuse of the legal system, propaganda, extortion (community organizing), infiltrating and debasing unions and any other institutions they can infiltrate and debase.

The most hardcore command economies (tyrannies) have elements of a free market system. In the Soviet Union it was the black market that served the higher echelon of soviet leaders, getting them western goods and even services while the proles suffered. Just as the most free of the free market economies have elements of a command economy to serve as checks and balances. Socialists though exploit this to overtake free market economies.

Basically the forces at work are liberty vs. tyranny. Socialism values and always moves in the direction of tyranny. Free markets and the underlying foundation of them move in the direction of and value liberty.

There is also a foundational spiritual element in it all as liberty comes from God. Basic rights such as are found in our founding documents (here in the U.S.) are founded in God and in our being created equal in the eyes of God. People who want to remove God from our nation don't understand what rights and freedom rest on. What man gives man can take away (and usually does). If a 'revolutionary committee' denies me the right to live I can counter that God gives me the right to live, not man. I'm endowed by my Creator with inalienable rights. If you ground your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in man and man's current philosophy and man's dictate you are basing your rights on a very false foundation that will soon give way. What man gives you man can take away from you, and he usually does, because it is the nature of fallen man to value tyranny over liberty.

"Calvin's 'theologian of the Holy Spirit' side is showing here, let us shield and protect you from it..."

Are modern Reformed seminaries turning out anything other than shallow dopes and deists? Look how desperately they attempt to 'teach' their minions 'just what' Calvin 'actually' meant when Calvin wrote anything that is above their shallow understanding.

Again, Calvin was a bare foot mystic compared to these suit and tie wearing academics. They enter their seminaries having no life experience and no experience with influences above their favorite movies and t.v. shows and exit them full of shallow understanding of Calvinist doctrine fed them by shallow unself-aware deists.

Look how the one in the link fumbles around with the phrase *psychologized self-awareness.* He has no clue what he's talking about. He's read the term self-awareness (actually, he's probably been reading my blog), and has done some google searching and thinks he's 'got it down' with the word 'psychologized.' As if self-awareness means (at least what he 'thinks' self-awareness means) a solely mental activity or realization or state.

God forbid this scholar ever comes across the term 'microcosmos' in Calvin (or some Puritan like Thomas Watson). He's going to have to disconnect the Renaissance (first he'll have to learn how to spell it) from the Reformation and the reformers.

And, because when they read this they won't see it: there is a connection between self-awareness and the term microcosmos and knowledge of God. Put down your ice cream. Put down your latest 'pugilistic deist', angry sacramentalist manifesto from R. Scott Clark, and engage the Word of God as if it is something above you and that you *receive*; then walk in the Spirit and stop getting embarrassed and being obsequious to your inane, lukewarm tribe of shallow academic pastors and professors. Fear God alone, it is the beginning of wisdom.

Three prayers composed by Jane Austen

I was glancing through a volume of Jane Austen's miscellaneous writings and came across three prayers she composed. It is always striking to read actual prayers like this. It really shows the true Christian nature of the person (prayer can be a real sign of true regeneration), in this case the famous novelist whose novels really don't express necessarily a deep faith in an explicit way:

First Prayer
Second
Third

Christianity minus priestcraft is 'unmediated' says the Reformed professor

The test of a Christian is spiritual warfare. Which includes going against your own inner Old Man.

What passes for Christianity in the churches and seminaries, liberal or not, is man-fearing death and the blind leading the blind.

If you're not in battle with the world, the flesh (your Old Man), and the devil you are not regenerated by the Word and the Spirit.

Orthodox doctrine is armor*. Orthodox doctrine minus the Spirit is vanity (emptiness)**.

Christianity is not 'unmediated' when you have the Spirit in you. Without the Spirit you can receive 'sacraments' from a million 'Ph.Ds' - whatever your current *ideal* is - and you will remain a dead soul.

_______
*"When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth - when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us - when not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the thing abides in our hearts - when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for - then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men."
- John Owen

**"As among all the doctrines of the gospel, there is none opposed with more violence and subtlety than that concerning our regeneration by the immediate, powerful, effectual operation of the Holy Spirit of grace; so there is not scarce anything more despised or scorned by many in the world than that any should profess that there hath been such a work of God upon themselves, or on any occasion declare aught of the way and manner whereby it was wrought... yea, the enmity of Cain against Abel was but a branch of this proud and perverse inclination."
- John Owen, A Discourse Concerning The Holy Spirit

Non-attachment

I was listening to a radio program, and a new agey guy was talking. He said he concentrates on doing three things:

1. Mindfulness. (In his words, being present in the moment.)
2. Non-Attachment.
3. Equanimity. (Think both being content no matter what is going on or what your situation or current circumstances; and also a sort of 'all things in moderation.')

Now, he seemed to have 1. and 3. put into some degree of understanding, but his understanding of 2. was, though very common, very off-the-mark.

He said, regarding non-attachment: "I don't own my wife. I don't own things. If something breaks, no big deal." This is not what non-attachment means, not in Buddhist teaching, not in eastern Christian teaching.

Non-attachment is - in my experience in explaining these things to people - the most difficult of the big practices for people to understand. It's also called non-identification. One of the problems is the terms used for the phenomenon have other meaning in most all languages and people stumble over this fact.

Vanity gets in the way as well because something like identification, when it is explained to a person, insults their self-estimate, their self-picture, their sense of themselves being in control, of being awake, etc.

Being in a state of attachment (or identification) is the normal/average state of human beings. It is what keeps us in a state of waking-sleep as we go through our day and life.

It is when the external moving world of things and events and impressions and influences 'capture' you; capture your attention in a 'one way' direction. I.e. capture your consciousness, such as it is. I.e. you are looking at an event on the street, yet you aren't aware of yourself looking at the event on the street. The event has captured your attention in a one-way sense. This can happen with just wallpaper as well. You are always 'identified' with your surroundings. (Your out-of-control imagination and thoughts and memories as well. Identification is also with things internal as well as external.)

I've written this before, even on this blog, but the best illustration I can think of is when you are sitting in a movie theater. If the movie is good it has attracted your attention and you become 'lost' in the moving images and light and sounds coming from the screen. Now, if you were to suddenly come into a state of remembering yourself, and pull back your consciousness, so to speak to where you see the *screen* itself, then you would be aware of yourself looking at the movie. Two-way. Before, it was just one-way and the moving images and light and sound had captured you. (I'm not saying this is a bad thing regarding watching a movie, you actually kind of want to be in that state somewhat or why be in a movie theater, but it provides a good illustration nevertheless.)

In life it's not so good to be in such a state. But you won't be alone. Everybody you see around you is sleep-walking, usually in very strong states of identification.

The other side of the coin of non-identification is self-remembering, or watchfulness, to use a biblical word. (The guy I used at the beginning of this post used the word mindfulness.)

When you are able to come into a state of self-remembering you at the same time come *out of* a state of identification.

Not being in a state of identification (and being in a state of self-remembering) makes you look weird to people, I should say. Imagine you are talking directly to a person and in your mind you are saying: "Here I am, talking to this person, on this campus, with those trees behind her, and I'm in college." People can detect such a state in another person and it generally annoys them. People are less threatening when they are asleep. Our vanity doesn't like it when we are being 'seen'. We will, by the way, always think the person doing it is a moron, even if - in the admittedly rare case - they are not. A rule is you can't recognize when somebody has a higher level of being than you. It's human nature. This is why you have to be very adept when finding on-the-mark teaching. You can't judge the teaching by the person who may be delivering it. (Non-Christians do that with Christians all the time, which is a good way to see why you shouldn't do it.)

Self-remembering has to be learned about by observing its opposite. You have to make a vow to be awake (I am here, in this moment, walking down this street...), and when you inevitably fall back into waking sleep you will, sometime later, eventually remember that you had made a vow to be awake. So now you can see that all that happened in the interval was you being in a state of waking-sleep. Your normal state.

I just wanted to write something on non-attachment and how it doesn't mean "I don't own my wife."

When we are in a state of the *fear of man* we are in a state of identification, by the way. Whether it's reverence or fear. Reverence for humans rather than the Creator or fear of man's collective opinion and so on. That is all fear of man. When you fear God only, in the moment you are practically doing the same as coming out of a state of identification and coming into a state of awakening in the moment.

There are eschatological correlations here. Coming out of fascination and fear of the devil's kingdom and coming, in the moment, now, vertically, into the Kingdom of God.

These two practices of self-remembering and non-identifying require a basic level of internal development. You have to be awake to a basic degree internally. I think regeneration by the Word and the Spirit gives one this (and it should be stated that regeneration is rare; a good thing to go by is if you get angry when someone talks of regeneration you need to humble yourself to the Word and the Spirit because you're not 'there' yet). Also, an unusual culmination of engaging higher influences (art, music, imaginative literature, history, philosophy, science, sacred writings) throughout life and educating the different parts of our being (intellectual, emotional/creative, physical) will give you this. The two practices though are meaningless to most people, at least currently in their lives.

+ + +

I should also mention what actually occurs when you do these two practices. You accumulate higher, more refined energy into your inner being (higher than you and your current level of being are used to; to extend limits we have to provoke limits). This energy then is either wasted (through negative emotional behavior or 'heated' intellectual and physical activity), i.e. it usually explodes out of you or is steadily used up in shallow, over-heated mental or physical activity, including out-of-control talking and even laughing; *or* you are actually able to use it. I'll leave that there. Higher energy is cognitive. It brings knowledge, and it brings functions with it that you don't have access to without it. The Puritan was getting at it when he said of faith: Faith hath a piercing eye, to see into the spiritual realms.

The two practices, it must also be said, put you on the spiritual battlefield. This is why a person needs the armor of God when engaging in such practices. It's good to do things to increase your level of being, but it puts you in serious territory. The world, the devil, and your very annoyed inner Old Man notice you and fight you. They confront you. If you don't know about this aspect you will be overwhelmed, as most people are, especially at the beginning of attempting such practices. The whole armor of God and prayer is needed. Everything else that happens you just have to find out for yourself.

Some influential books from different eras of the life of an eventual Christian

History:

Youth - General, universal world histories (such as Welles, Spengler, J. M. Roberts)
Young man - classical historians (ancient: Herodotus/Thucydides, Plutarch; Machievelli, Gibbon, Montesquieu; general 20th century history not excepting the history of tyranny)
Adult - Biblical Theology - John Owen (general histories of redemption)

Philosophy (including practical, or worldly):

Youth - Emerson, Plato
Young man - Nietzsche
Adult - Ouspensky, von Clauswitz, Adam Smith, Reformed Theology

Imaginative Literature (this category tends to merge more than others and refuses to line up to life eras):

Youth - classic novels (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Fielding, Cervantes; the usual 20th century line up)
Young Man - Pilgrim's Progress, von Eschenbach
Adult - Homer, Shakespeare

Sacred Writings:

Youth - general reading of all world religions
Young Man - general reading and seeking of more practical levels of religion, mystics, etc.
Adult - Old and New Testaments

Classic C. S. Lewis

'.... What some people say on earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved.'
'Ye see it does not.'
'I feel in a way that it ought to.'
'That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it.'
'What?'
'The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs' should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven.'

-C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

This undermines one of the atheist's usual poses

I was going to say if you have C. S. Lewis' God in the Dock there is one of his little essays that can be so impressive in their way. I found it, though, on the 'net, so you don't have to have the book at hand. It's called Man or Rabbit? One of those essays you'd like to have in memory when interacting with the typical atheists one runs into here and there. If you're impatient read the final two paragraphs of the essay first.

Anna Ternheim

Interesting girl singer: No Subtle Men.

If you hang with these songs long enough the choruses are musically interesting:

here
here
here (this one is becoming my favorite after listening to her music for a couple of days).

Separation marker for new year, 2010, and new approach

+ + + + + + + NEW YEAR + + + + + + +

It's often necessary to be negative, but it has to be admitted that it is easy to be negative too. Being positive opens one up to attack. If you're positive about something that isn't 100% wheat (like only the Bible is) then people will focus on the chaff, no matter how small an amount there may be, and call you a heretic and what not for saying something positive about something that has chaff in it. Caveats don't inoculate either. Neither does anticipating your attackers (who are commonly easy to anticipate). You'll be seen as soft no matter what; and usually the attacker will be consciously unfair in his/her approach. This is why Christians who know the truth tend to mostly be negative in their approach. It's more of a closed fighting stance. Less trouble.

You won't read most reformers back in the day being positive in any way towards, for instance, Quakers, or any of the radical Anabaptists. Even though they could be for one reason or another. Tar baby type of thing. Best not to touch it. (In contemporary usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.)

Also, the legions of wobblies and armies of the lukewarm love to apply the term 'concession' to anyone known to be hardcore and anything but lukewarm. "So you concede that [blah blah blah]..." No, wobbly. No.

The thing with the negative approach is you can get to a point where you become a caricature or you just start trying too hard, or you hammer a theme 83 too many times.

So, new year, new approach, with a separation marker and everything.

Modern critical text Christians appropriate classical Protestant confessions

The pretension of modern critical text following Reformed Christians to classical Protestantism is similar to the atheist pretension to science. Neither had anything to do with what they are appropriating to themselves, and neither values what they are appropriating to themselves.

The Reformation fought what these modern day fake Reformed adopt and push on their dumb congregations and students. The reformers died to protect what these fake Reformed 'christians' *mock* everyday of their wicked, wet existence.

Notice they delete any criticism of the pope from the confessions also. This exposes who they are. But just that they follow two excrement eaters like Westcott and Hort gives away their idol-worshiping desires.