Getting at the root of the problem

An excerpt from [url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/special/131christians/eusebius.html]Eusebius of Caesarea[/url]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just as Eusebius was writing about Christianity's defeat of paganism, one of its greatest threats was developing on the inside. Arius, a presbyter from Libya, was gaining followers around the empire, teaching, "There was a time when the Son was not." Egyptian bishop Alexander and his chief deacon, Athanasius, fumed at the teaching. The argument spread throughout the empire, promising to rip the church in two. Constantine—God's chosen instrument, as Eusebius saw him—called the Council of Nicea to close the fissure.

Since his earliest days with Pamphilus, Eusebius was enthralled with the teachings of Origen, who has been criticized for 1,800 years for his belief that the Trinity was a hierarchy, not an equality. So Eusebius was less concerned with Arius's heresy than the threat of disunity in the church. When Arius was censured, Eusebius—who thought the entire debate brought Christianity the "most shameful ridicule"—was among the first to ask that he be reinstated.

At the Council of Nicea, Eusebius (whose name means "faithful") attempted to mediate between the Arians and the orthodox. But when the council was over and Arius was anathematized, Eusebius was reluctant to agree with its decision. He eventually signed the document the council produced, saying, "Peace is the object which we set before us." But a few years later, when the tables flipped and Arianism became popular, Eusebius criticized Athanasius, hero of the council. He even sat on the council that deposed him. Eusebius wasn't himself an Arian—he rejected the idea that "there was a time when the Son was not" and that Christ was created out of nothing. He simply opposed anti-Arianism.

[b]He simply opposed anti-Arianism.[/b]

I am wondering if you think this is, or is not, a valid Christian stance?

I think it [u][b]is[/b][/u] the Christian stance and the very root of the problem.

[i]Eusebius wasn't himself an Arian—he rejected the idea that "there was a time when the Son was not" and that Christ was created out of nothing. He simply opposed anti-Arianism.[/i]

Something intangible in this tension. It comes up here in so many different discussions, the KJV debate, the similar [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=11067&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Practical Wisdom For Calvinists*[/url] 'debate', even by way of example and illustration the whole of the 'Recovery' and this great expression from T. Austin Sparks;

"[i]The great enemy does not give up his determination to interrupt fellowship and to spoil the work of the Lord by bringing division among His people. Everywhere this evil work is being pressed with increasing intensity. The enemy is set upon destroying anything that will result in the Lord Jesus coming into His full place. We must stand and withstand and do all in our power to keep this ground from him. It is costly, and it demands that we let go all that is only personal, and that we stand for the glory of our Lord's name and His interests alone... I am sure that you will never make me or my ministry a ground of division. There is no need to fight for me; the Lord is on the Throne, and He can order things to His Own Will - while we pray and trust Him.[/i]"

More importantly as he goes on ...

[i]Do you know that that is precisely and positively the teaching and position of the people called "Exclusive Brethren"? This teaching first went to Shanghai with the leading Exclusive Brethren who tried to capture the whole work of brother Nee. Brother Nee refused to be made an official part of that body, but the teaching got in, and has gone on ever since. When I came to Manila and Hong Kong I was very sorry to see that in both Assembly Halls there were for sale many of the books from the Stow Hill Bible Dept. in England. I feared that this would lead to both exclusiveness and division, and as late as last year one of the biggest divisions took place among them. Their whole church teaching is based upon this "Locality" law. (That is, the church ground.) Brother Lee is the strongest exponent of it in the Far East.[u]I love brother Lee and will do all possible to avoid separation from him.[/u]

[b]We must all fight hard to prevent divisions, and our ground must be Christ in all His own[/b]... I shall continue to pray for you all, and that the Lord will get a great victory over all the evil powers which are working so hard to [u]bring dishonor upon His name everywhere[/u]... Give my greetings to all the brothers and sisters.[/i]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=9074&forum=31&post_id=&refresh=Go]T.Austin-Sparks (TAS) and Witness Lee (WL) - a short story - by Herald Hsu, student of Watchman Nee[/url]

The point of even bringing that excerpt out is not to reopen it all here, but the underscore and emboldening is in much more than the font style ...

It is and continues to be the very essence and aplanatic* aspect that alludes us. It is in the spiritual ... [i]marrow[/i].. the only word I can find expression in, more than 'manner' though that seems to be the crux of it. Our pride, our defending, the vileness that comes about or out of the evil heart in jumping to the dogmatics of doctrine rather than the Substance and substrate, the [i]marrow[/i], the ease to grieve the Holy Spirit by our unwillingness to bend and our overbearingness to get a point across. It is the tripping point of division unnecessary, of unkind words and even more cutting remarks. It is the blindness of so much that while it is or may be important, the whole of an argument can be reduced to rubble by just the constant neglect of...

[b]bringing dishonor upon His name[/b]

We forget. I forget. I can't even get very far along in trying to get myself to look at this and others to do likewise, this distinct and ultimate heart issue without making a mess of things ... We have so much confussion now that we often have to explain away [i]first[/i] what we [u]do not mean[/u] and\\or we go off the rails and completely disregard the [i]weightier[/i] matters, so bound up in the arguments that we not only cannot hear each other, we don't even [i]want[/i] to hear each other, let alone attempt something so extreme as to humble ourselves and recall just Who it is and why it is we bring such grief upon and to and on ... as if it doesn't even matter. "I have a point to make!" "I have an opinion!" "[b]I[/b] think ..."

Sometimes I must wonder if the inverse of this verse is true;

Mat 18:20 [i]For where two or three are gathered together [b]in my name[/b], there am I in the midst of them.[/i]

To where it becomes, "Where two or three are [i]scattered[/i] in [i][u]my name[/u][/i] ..."

Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, [u]and went away[/u] again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. Joh 10:39,40

Ever get that sense? That while all these turmoils and convulsions and arguments are ongoing, the placements of a jot or a tittle (Mat 5:18), in the midst of all the noise and clamoring, to stop and ask; Where is the Lord? Only to find that He left long ago and is far from us...

I know it sounds incredibly impossible, but I still am of a mind that if we were to really, truly humble ourselves, if the Lord was truly in our midst, if we were in a real state of manifest revival, the Lords [i]felt[/i] presence ... There would be agreement, there would be true unity, there would be admittance and change of mind and of heart ... it's there. It has to be. The Lord is not divided. [i]We are[/i].

There is something subconsciously sin-ister amongst us. An unspoken ideal that says "We just disagree" "We really do love each other" "We are only debating secondary issues" It's an afterthought or a 'given' but how much of it is in reality meaningless? We prove the opposite or the hypocrisy of it by our words and actions ...
Don't we?

I leveled the charge in shutting down a thread yesterday as it was getting out of hand and becoming ill-willed, cutting remarks, disinterested in the many who come through here and slapped the Ravenhill statement as part of the reason ...

[i]because you stink with pride, that's why[/i]

Well, so do I. It is impossible to level that charge without feeling the sting of the lash on the back-swing. And I am not sure if I need to apologize for it as much as I just need to repent of it as we all do.

This 'intangible', this tension... this [i]root[/i]. It's as if one needs to be pulled out and the other cultivated.

There is but a couple of important questions that we all must somehow keep before us. We are either bringing dishonor upon His Name or bringing honor to His Name.

But first we must remember His Name.

*[b]Aplanatic
APLANAT'IC[/b], a. [Gr. to wander.]

An aplanatic telescope is one which entirely corrects the aberration of the rays of light. It is thus distinguished from the achromatic, which only partially corrects the aberration.

Quote:

[i]He simply opposed anti-Arianism.[/i]

This is raw philosophical scepticism.

?
How did you get this out of all that came before?

[i]I think it is the Christian stance and the very root of the problem.[/i]

Well, I don't perceive it as a Christian stance AT ALL. It is entirely a worldly philosophical stance, which seeks to cast doubt on a proper contention for truth - which proper contention for The Truth is entirely scriptural.

I have no idea what you are talking about... "cast doubt"?

[i]So Eusebius was less concerned with Arius's heresy than the threat of disunity in the church. When Arius was censured, Eusebius—who thought the entire debate brought Christianity the "most shameful ridicule"—was among the first to ask that he be reinstated.[/i]

[i]At the Council of Nicea, Eusebius (whose name means "faithful") attempted to mediate between the Arians and the orthodox.[/i]

[i]Eusebius wasn't himself an Arian—[b]he rejected the idea[/b] that "there was a time when the Son was not" and that Christ was created out of nothing. He simply opposed anti-Arianism.[/i]

I know next to nothing about Eusebius and the whole point of this excerpt and what followed was to simply point out that which few are reluctant to even attempt... A different tactic, a Christian one.

What in the world does that have to do with skepticism?

When I read what Bro. Mike is saying I am hearing a passage resounding in my heart from I Corinthians 8:1b:

...Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

I don't believe he is saying we are not to have convictions or stand for truth. This are all essential. We have to check ourselves before we enguage in conversations with folk. This is no different when we are witnessing to an atheist. We can win an argument and lose a soul. Same here. One could win a theological argument and lose a brother or sister in the Lord.

I have 5 teen aged children and a 5 year old. One thing I do not tolerate is arguing and bickering. When I hear this carrying on I am not too interested about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. My first response is to the tone of their behavior towards one another. The facts in the case are secondary, to me. We can work through the facts and get to the bottom of the truth; but an uncharitable posture towards one another, as my children, is to me [i]most vexing[/i].

...Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

And another...
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.(1Pe 4:8)
I can appreciate Roberts story about the uncharitable posture between his children. I see the same in my home and it is indeed vexing. My father also used to deal first with this posture among me and my siblings when we took this stance with each other. He used to have a phrase that would usually deflate our prideful and contentious stance with one another. He would say, "Where's the 1st Corinthians 13 love?"

In Christ,

Ron

I have 5 teen aged children and a 5 year old. One thing I do not tolerate is arguing and bickering. When I hear this carrying on I am not too interested about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. My first response is to the tone of their behavior towards one another. The facts in the case are secondary, to me. We can work through the facts and get to the bottom of the truth; but an uncharitable posture towards one another, as my children, is to me most vexing.

Ah ... [i]Yes![/i] A thousand times yes and amen.

"Tone"

What a well chosen word! It is to get to the bottom of the truth... the bottom of ourselves as well. It is most vexing when it rears it's ugly head. This matter of pride, the reluctancy to deal with it in all it's vast forms and manifestations.

Almost hesitate here, coming upon this. It is precisely the point brother, may it not be lost in the rather loquacious musings to follow ...

What it is not ...

A condescending of truth or a compromise
A sophistry or slovenry
An intellectual argument or slothfulness of thought
Emotionalism nor ecumenicism
Pandering to men nor fear of man

It is not the philosophy of the head but the heart.
It is to set to suffer and be long suffering, patient, prayerful ... care - full.

It is not to win by intimidation or manipulation
It is to argue from the standpoint of the weakness of humility, the paradox and strength of honesty.

Something both struck and stuck for a little while now is just what is our 'apologetic', and maybe I could have spared all the former word-smithing with just these verses;

[i]But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.[/i]
1Pe 3:15,16

Seems to me the hinge word here is [i]hope[/i] while we tend to stand on the word [i]reason[/i] and in either case it is by dissection or cherry picking is the dialouge culled from and not the whole of context.

If we just had the first part of this ...
How much of the last part is in actuality an accurate accusation, to our shame not [i]theirs[/i]?

Our conversation in Christ is often not good but evil.
The things that spring forth out of our pens and our lips, bitterness and contention, entrenched in our theological positions even when correct are ruined by the the venom that spews forth in our defending. All the things Paul counted and called rubbish we rummage through, put a spit shine on and hold it up as a jewel of virtue. A pride of knowledge, of study, of learning, the happy sense of speaking well for the Lord so we think, without ever taking the time to find out if what we are doing is well pleasing in His sight.

We are reticent to take injury to ourselves
To be offended and misunderstood
Harboring resentment, stirring divisiveness
How long can we go in disagreement before the default mechanism kicks in and we must go to slander and presumption, character assassination, that strange insult to supposed dead to self people that we would like to think we are. There is a hilarity there almost, an absurdity that we take ourselves so seriously to be injured by the weakness, the holes in our arguments pointed out by others. Hunkered down into the trenches of our positions where no contrary thought dare enter. An old cigarette add once stated "We would rather fight than switch". Or in other words, reluctant to change our minds when they need to be altered, render our hearts by contrition and admittance.

We do know some things, if we know the Lord.
Have we forgot that we are taking orders not giving them? Becoming little armchair theologians, generals in our own right. our own sight.

Such a place, such a place it is here. Such a wonderful valley of discovery, a plethora of resources ... Will we scare off those who come with our high mindedness or lead them to Living water?

It is this substance, this root, this manner of conversation that I am attempting to mediate to our hearts. It is to reason from the hope that is in you, not the pride that is so deeply rooted.

[i]This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us[/i]. 1Jo 1:5-10

If we say ...
If we confess ...
If we walk ...

Hi Dorcas,

There is something missing there in that description, kind of an incomplete sentance...

'it [b]is[/b] the Christian stance AND the very root of the problem that we are often slow to recognize the Spirit by which we go about things'

And that was the tense of what I was picking up on from the "anti" aspect of Erasmus.

Are you saying that it is a Christian stance to fight for an all-inclusive church,

...hmmm, depends ... far too much fodder for misunderstanding there, from the Lords perspective "That they may be one as We .." From ours ... maybe that will get a bit more of a thought down a little ways here. But no, that wasn't the direction I was thinking at all.

or, is it simply with regard to SI that you want a better spirit of bearing with each other's differences,

or, are you saying that we do need to fight for truth, but, as Robert and Ron suggested, do it in a charitable manner?

Much more concise and if I had my druthers and had just done the simple thing, the one thing ... I would have left off the reply after Robert, he codified it very well as did Ron.

Have been railing somewhat lately about this matter of pride and the Lord is so remarkable in teaching us so many things ... I re-read the follow up later on yesterday and had that sinking feeling again, something missing from all of it, even in attempting to draw it all out and at the time it was written, my I thought, this makes perfect sense! The missing element?

Prayer.

Ah, so slow, to hear. To listen and just obey the one thing the Lord would have us\\me to do at any given moment.

It is my lot to pray...

Such high privilege! Nothing to boast of, nothing to make anything of other than it's past a certain conviction ... I know better and when I don't take that specific, set aside time ... Ah, the ruin, the stupidity! :-? Not to be overly smitten by the fact, just a sense of... "[i]Cease striving and know...[/i]"

So what did I find this morning? What was it the Lord wanted?

Nothing.

Just to be quiet. To be still. By and large...
Silent.

And what did I find ...?

A wonderful, peaceful ... rest. A broad smile both in my heart and on my face. Thankfulness and quiet worship and more thankfulness ... It was so tremendous I can hardly express it. It was ... easy. It was ....

Mat 11:28 [i]Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.[/i]

It seemed to be a small taste of that half hour of silence in Revelation. The Lord is good.

So to distract back to the topic at hand ... It did come up in the midst of all this, in the other prayers for all of us here ... Had a number of thoughts. One, the silliness of relying on the reserves, so to speak. There may have been something of use in the long rambling after Robert, but just as well some pride while talking about pride, some poor conversation while attempting to draw attention to [i]good conversation[/i]. Had this thought as well...

Seems we can be almost like automobiles, full of gasoline (a disagreement, a contention, an anxiety, a notion, you name it) and one match, something gets under our skin (or into the gas tank) and ... [b]![/b]

And maybe the whole point of this idea attempted here would be to just open a valve and let all the gas out ...

Seems there is still some gas left in this tank.

Dear saints,

I left the previous 'christian' forum because they seem to love to tear each other down, I now see it as a forum of devilish activities. One could read insanity from many of their 'theological' posts, obsessed with their intense pride and prejudices. All they are ever saying is, " I am right, you are wrong."

Dorcas (Linn?), your posts have edified and taught me quite a bit, I look forward to reading more of them.

I appreciate all you moderators on this forum as I could sense an attitude towards godliness behind your posts. I for one will be asking our LORD to add on to your integrity to uphold this forum in HIS sight to HIS glory in days and years ahead, with much sobriety and faithfulness to the Scriptures. Remembering I Cor 13:9-13 "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part..and the greatest of these is love."

May GOD help each of us in this forum to continue to grow in His grace and His knowledge with much humility and love for one another, in His Spirit and in His Truth!

in Christ,mamaluk :)

Robert and Ron, you would be very surprised at my reaction to your posts... although I see what you are saying. Please bear with my forthright comment following. You touched a raw nerve which I was not expecting - that you have the luxury of being able to address these issues with your children for all the right and best reasons, and your wives have your support in bringing up your children..... It seemed far from issues about truth, to me. I had a little cry, because I felt angry with indignation, and then I was better - although I hope you do take very seriously the getting to the root of the truth, every time. It is an important aspect of validating your children's existence. Also, I hope they are not being silenced, so that in the world, they do not feel confident to speak out for truth.

Dear Sister, I can only agree with you that I am very surprised by your reaction. I do indeed take very seriously the matter getting to the truth, believe me, I tend to see things in black and white with no shades of gray, but I believe that there must be a foundation of charity, patience, and longsuffering with one another. My purpose in posting was simply to affirm this need for "speaking the truth in love" which is what I thought was a point Mike was driving at.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.(2Ti 2:24-26)

In Christ,

Ron

Took a little while to get back to this, have been musing on it still.

[i]He simply [u]opposed anti[/u] ... Arianism.[/i]

I am wondering if you think this is, or is not, a valid Christian stance?

I can't tell if you mean it should be or it shouldn't be 'the Christian stance'.

At the time I think I took your question in the sense of multiple choice, one among many, "A valid" Christian stance. And my emphasis that it [b][i]Is[/i][/b] the Christian stance with a sense of finality. More than "should be". That stance is from the position of, whose Spirit is indwelling us?

[i]but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?[/i]

Zec 7:10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Positionally speaking, what is the heart of the Christian?

The controlling interest? Is it the natural aversion of aggression, leading to reactionary impulses, the [i]first, strike[/i] mentality? I am speaking spiritually and in this realm of brother against brother.

The Lord. Argumentative? Defensive? Compromising? [i]Angry[/i]? In a hostile manner? Better clarify that... The Lords anger and ours far too often are polar opposites. We will find a justification by latching unto the table turning as if it was applicable to all kinds of disagreements and secondary matters.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[b]Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar[/b] ... - The Pharisees were intent only on the external act in worship. They looked not at all to the internal state of the mind. If a man conformed to the external rites of religion, however much envy, and malice, and secret hatred he might have, they thought he was doing well. Our Saviour taught a different doctrine. It was of more consequence to have the heart right than to perform the outward act. If, therefore, says he, a man has gone so far as to bring his gift to the very altar, and should remember that anyone had anything against him, it was his duty there to leave his offering and go and be reconciled. While a difference of this nature existed, his offering could not be acceptable. He was not to wait until the offended brother should come to him; he was to go and seek him out, and be reconciled. So now the worship of God will not be acceptable, however well performed externally, until we are at peace with those that we have injured. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” 1Sa_15:22. He that comes to worship his Maker filled with malice, and hatred, and envy, and at war with his brethren, is a hypocritical worshipper, and must meet with God’s displeasure. God is not deceived, and he will not be mocked.

[b]Thy gift[/b] - Thy sacrifice. What thou art about to devote to God as an offering.

[b]To the altar[/b] - The altar was situated in front of the temple, and was the place on which sacrifices were made. See the notes on plan, Mat_21:12. To bring a gift to the altar was expressive of worshipping God, for this was the way in which he was formerly worshipped.

[b]Thy brother[/b] - Any man, especially any fellow-worshipper. Anyone of the same religious society.

[b]Hath aught[/b] - Is offended, or thinks he has been injured by you in any manner.

[b]First be reconciled[/b] - This means to settle the difficulty; to make proper acknowledgment or satisfaction for the injury. If you have wronged him, make restitution. If you owe him a debt which ought to be paid, pay it. If you have injured his character, confess it and seek pardon. If he is under an erroneous impression, if your conduct has been such as to lead him to suspect that you have injured him, make an explanation. Do all in your power; and all you ought to do, to have the matter settled. From this we learn:

1.\tThat, in order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men.

2.\tOur worship will not be acceptable unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.

3.\tIt is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.

4.\tThis should be done before we attempt to worship God.

5.\tThis is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not do what we ought to others; we cherish improper feelings or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship him.

Albert Barnes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

know you improved your statement with a qualification, but, it has thrown me, because you used a capital (s) for Spirit, and yet you seem to be saying the spirit we are of, is not right..... the 'slow to recognize'.

2Co 13:5 [i]Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?[/i]

It may be an interesting slip there ... And the way you put it makes one have to really stop and think about it. Which re-doubles the whole point.

If we were to measure everything back to this centrality, this [i][u]fact[/u][/i], this incredibly powerful, unimaginable reality ... To ponder long on this;

that [b]Jesus Christ is in you[/b]

Not what He has done, Has said, Has taught ([i]by themselves[/i]), we have churches filled and even the morally 'good' people of the world filled with and adhering to principles, aping conduct. "What Would Jesus Do"? As if He was only a mere consultant, a teacher of wisdom, someone to appeal, to [i]act[/i]like. I know a great deal of this is preaching to the choir as we have been over it a million times ... and yet how stinging if we were to pause and reflect on many an issue that becomes hostile, that [i]starts[/i] from the wrong [i]center[/i]...

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11166&post_id=86955&order=0&viewmode=thread&pid=0&forum=36#86955]Behold, I stand at the door, and knock[/url]

Thought that deserved it's own place there. But if Christ be [i]in[/i] us, is not His very character as well? All the former mentions of the things He said and did and so forth, are they not present [i]now[/i]? Do we not recognize that we are much more than 'representative' of Him, that the One and same Spirit, The Holy Spirit who ...

[i]But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, [u]he shall testify of me[/u]: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.[/i]Joh 15:26,27

And again because ...

[i]And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be [b][u]in[/u][/b] you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you[/i]. Joh 14:16-18

I am practically beside myself in just drawing attention back to this profundity of expression, this unimaginable ... undeserved? Oh how well we know this aspect, correction, or do we? Our actions often betray us...

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

And every knee shall and every tongue will, does our heart not do so [i][u]now[/u][/i], are we not humbled [i]presently[/i]?

This past week has been a wonder. A time of beautiful, sweet simplicity of prayer, largely silent, [i]be still and know...[/i], peaceful, resting and waiting on the Lord, His slight manifest Presence as I am want to describe it, nearer. The quiet underlying groanings of the spirit, the ease of mingled prayers and intercession. Wonderful. Incredible.

But one must always arise from the prayer closet and go forth out into the world which is so adjusted as to make everything ridiculously difficult having displaced God Himself, with the human self, deceived to the absurd point of thinking we\\they\\us are running everything ...

It did carry over as I went about my work, underneath everything even in the silly pace and overwhelming amount of [i]load[/i]. And just as it always seems, the Lord will put the closet learning and experience to the test. I tend to put it in this peculiar mind of mine as "Being kicked off the mountain". And it came. A test of resolve, not by will power but by submission.

I was getting what I perceived to be unduly hammered by my boss, all kinds of emotions began stirring up, defenses and resentments, was beginning to get quite ticked off inwardly and as the usual want is, that place of expression, that 'complaint', to want to vent it to a coworker who just happened to be present while it had taken place. As I walked away from it afterward, stewing over it, justifying myself in my thoughts ... A voice; "Humble yourself". Oh without a doubt, not my voice. Not then, not some former learned principle, "I ought to, I should". It was distinct and I knew Whose voice was speaking. I smiled and recognized all the previous days productivity if I may of the prayer closet and inwardly acknowledged, "Yes, of course ..." "Thank you Lord". Did everything suddenly turn back to peace and tranquility? Not exactly, but all the steam was let out, all the flammable gas drained away and as the day progressed, the little arguments that kept attempting to raise themselves back up again were met time and again with "Humble yourself" and His peace overwhelmed and overshadowed.

The greater aspect of all this is that the Lord maintains His glory and how often is it by the smallest of matters, seemingly, in the realm of things we [i]don't do[/i] that give witness to Him rather than [i]doing[/i] and defending, fighting and waring, biting and devouring, [i]arguing[/i] over doctrines rather than [i]reasoning[/i] with each other ... Always forgetting the Lord Himself while being busy about His business as we are want to think it and rarely stopping to ask the Lord, who is [u]in[/u] us,... His opinion, on our opinion, of our interpretation of His opinion...

That we might just humble ourselves ... first.