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.