God lurks among us...at EVC

Sorry I didn't respond here, I was typing my long response, and I had to go, and never posted it. Then someone shut my computer down, lol. If you don't choose to reject the gospel, then you have choosen to accept it.i don't think that is worded correctly. Maybe you meant, no matter what you cannot change what Jesus did for us? I believe there is a bible verse, which I cannot find right now, that explains coming to know the Lord is not merely a human effort. My doctrine does not include who will, and who will not go to heaven.Since Jesus came and changed the world, our bodies are now the temple, and the Holy Spirit dwells within all of us.To what extent relies on God, and how you keep your temple. Initially God may call on you, but then it's up to you, to keep the temple clean, so that God may dwell there. This has nothing to do with going to heaven or not.Surely there are levels in heaven, as we store up treasures here on earth.Too many Christians focus on John 3:16, and think that by accepting the name of Jesus, that's what gets you into heaven. I like to focus more on John 3:21, which focuses more on the Spirit that is in you.Some people call it "the greater good". Maybe that's because the church has ruined "the name of Jesus" for them. So when they get to the pearly gates, God will say, you denied Jesus, but then they will say, I followed what was in my heart, and who knows, maybe that's good enough, because what was in there hearts is what Jesus deposited for us. A just judge would judge us based on what we know in our hearts, not a set of rules. Isn't that all relative to each individual? I am sure there arepeople who think that way. Ever see the green miracle rag paid programming on TV? Yes, He tore the vail, and you no longer need to go to a temple and make a sacrifice to talk to God. God is in us now, we are the temple. I don't know about climbing stairs, but what you do on earth will be judged, but only by God, not by us.22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,Righteousness from God through faith.What is faith?
How do you believe?

I don't see why that follows in and of itself. A fuller statement might be: If I reject, it is despite Gods call on me to accept. If I accept it is because of Gods call on me to accept. Without his enabling me I would never be able to accept. Thus it cannot be said simply that I chose. Unless he chose me, called me, showed me then I could never believe. While your looking, find one that implies any effort at all on our part in relation to salvation 'Mine' does "There is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ" Romans 8:1. The opposite of this should be obvious. The criteria for going to heaven: In Christ. If you are not in Christ you are in Adam. All are born in Adam. Who are 'us'? And in what way did Jesus 'change the world'? How clean does the temple have to be? What if some cobwebs grow and the cleaniness varies (as it surely will)? Does God move out again? This stuff is the stuff of pure subjectivity rR. It is far simpler than that. God only dwells in a place of pure righteousness - not partial. And none of our actions can make us clean enough. A Christian is declared righteous - totally so. His righteousness is not his own of course - he has had it imputed or credited to him - just as Abraham did. Christs righteousness. "Do you not know your body is a temple" cries Paul. He exhorts Christians (not everyone) to put to death the deeds of the flesh BECAUSE they are temples. You don't do moneylending in the temple - you defile it. Defiling the temple doesn't mean it is no longer one - just that it is being defiled. I think there is "greater and lesser in the kingdom of heaven" seems to say so. Works are important but not in the sense that they result in entrance to heaven. Or hell. Entry to those places come from elsewhere, your works affect your position in either of these places (we might suppose that greater/lesser applies as much to hell as heaven. God is perfectly just. Works define the spoils. But not the destination. The only person who is a Christian is one who has been made so by God. When a person believes then they become Christians. Not saying they believe, not believing they believe. But only by believing as defined by God. Then the spirit is given. And only to Christians. It is part and parcel of what happens at the point of conversion. You have a point. And breaking even the merest iota of any rule is sufficient to damn. All one has to do is do anything which they know to be wrong and they will have sinned. We were born sinners - sin is what sinners do, can be expected to do Again, definition of who constitutes 'us' (with some biblical backup) would be helpful From - through - toFrom God, through faith, to all who believe. Faith is a highway down which God sends/imputes Jesus righteousness to us. If I have faith it is because God built the highway. If I am declared righteous then he is the one who has made me so. That highway is put in place on the point of belief. The belief too is enabled by God in the sense that he brings us to a place where it is possible for us to ask blindly. To get on our knees and admit "I need you" The belief at that point isn't developed. For that instant it is blind belief. Illogical belief. Born out of God-enabled desparation.But not for very long. Once that happens, the highway is opened and know-belief can start to be transported us-wardsOr we can stay off our knees and continue to deny our need

Ok, fair enough:
Matthew 7:
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.James 4:4
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.John 7:17
If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.1 Peter 4:18
And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"Hebrews 10:39
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.1 Timothy 2:4
who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.Matthew 24:13
but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.There is many more. I am in no way saying that God does not call you, or by oursleves we can be saved, it is in conjunction with Jesus that we are saved, by our belief, and by what He did for us. But clearly there is a task involved for us. Mr. Baker is going to heaven?See, this is where I have a problem. I agree with that verse, but I believe it only concerns myself, not what I think of others. I explained it. He sent the Holy Spirit, and the vail was torn. Why do we have to put deeds of the flesh if we are already saved by Jesus? According to what you are saying?I did mention that our bodies are temples. I never said it wasn't a temple anymore. Yes, I agree with that. Define believe. Us, is all of us, the human race.Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."As far as I know, this means all people. That is why I think we all know right and wrong to a point. But then there is deception, it's so sneaky. But the truth is/was there all along, Jesus sent it. That's all well and good, but it doesn't seem to cover certain scenerios. Example.Someone raised Catholic, gets molested by a priest, he then determines that the christian God is not the real God, but he knows in his heart that there is a God. He just can't relate to the name "Jesus". Is he going to hell now?

I'm off to bed rR so if I may I'll pick some highlights. The effort/salvation verses would take too much for now.No condemnation: don't know Mr Baker. It doesn't matter that I do know. In Christ/not In Christ that is the question. The time available to a man for being taken out of Adam and being put into Christ runs out at his last breath. If Mr Baker seems not to be in Christ now that is not to say that he will not be. I was 38 when God put me into Christ. I could have been 8, 78 or 108. Hitler could be there for all I knowThe song ain't over til the fat lady sings Your mixing metaphores here rR. Veil torn indicating the way was now open between man and God. No more the Old way where God dealt with mankind through priest and the like. Now direct one-to-one relationship was possible. Through Christ (WAY, truth and life). Way open doesn't mean one doesn't need a vehicle to make the journey. Christ is the vehicle. One has to be in the vehicle to make the journey. The journey is instantaneous w.r.t salvation. Christ as a portal. Beam me up Scotty.Sending the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the veil being torn. Justified, In Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, born again, law written on hearts, adopted sons, heirs, glorifed, eternal life. All instantaneous occurances at the point of conversion. All God given. A package deal. There are some key phrases which serve well when reading the pivotal mechanistic book which explains the Gospel. Romans. Look for the "therefore's" and "but now's" and "what shall we say then's" which Paul so frequently uses. These are nodal points where the apostle has presented his partial case and will now draw a conclusion or deal with an objection arising from what he has previously said up to this point.Have a read of Romans up to 3:20 or thereabouts. Roman 1:16 Paul sets out his stall. The issue is salvation. And the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes: Jew and Gentile alike. That is the main thesis.Then he expounds on the detail from here: argument dealing with the Gods wrath poured out on the godless (obvious). Then turning (in Romans 2) on the religiously-minded (who would sit beside Paul agreeing "Yes: those filthy Gentiles (godless) - they deserve as you say" only to say to them "You are as bad as those Gentiles!". Pauls arrives at Romans 3.x having shown that BOTH the godless ("who gives a crap about the law") and the god-requires-law-abiding ("if we follow the law (and we do) we'll be fine") are in the same sinking boatHe concludes witheringly with his summary for those who would think that law adherering results in salvation at Romans 3:20 Firsly the Gentiles are shagged as plain out and out lawbreakers ("he who so much as breaks the merest portion of the law is guilty of breaking it all" - oh dear!).Then he shows that the Religious are just as shagged because attempting (Jars 'trying') to adhere to the law doesn't save ("he who breaks the merest portion of the law is guilty of breaking it all" applies here too - for want of perfect adherance)Paul gives us the actual purpose of the law here: laws purpose > to let us know we are what we are: sinners. Without it how would we know??This first point is established. Paul has finished explaining that everyone is in need of salvation, Jew and Gentile alike: religious, agnostic, athiest. Whether they now know it or not. And the way that natural, in Adam sinning men believe is the way to it - law adhering, being good, loving their neighbour as themselves - is not in fact the way. Thats the bad news."BUT NOW...."Paul, having first explained that everyone is shagged: Gentile and Jew alike not turns to expound on what it is we need to hear at this point - some Good News. As he did in Romans 1:16 he summarizes a central point before he begins with the detail No justification/righteousness through law adhering and certainly no justification/righteousness through law breaking. Righteous (definitely required by man) is to be supplied FROM God. And it was always the case. The OT said so (even if it was revealed through a glass darkly) witnessed by prophets as this way of righteousness was.What has all this to do with a Christians works you ask? Go look at the rest of Romans - say up to chapter 8. Keep a watch out for the "but now" and "therefore" and "what shall we say then" a similar nodal points.Romans 6:1 "What shall we say then" ("...in response to this doctrine of justification by faith and not works which I, Paul, have just explained to you in chapter 5"). "Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound?" Paul is immediately responding the very first idea that enters the head of someone who hears of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, to whit: "Grreeaaat!! I am saved! I am going to heaven - Hang on a sec... Doesn't that mean I can sin as I please from now on and still go to heaven - yippee!!!")To which Paul responds immediately "God forbid!" (read "are you nuts?!!") "Do you not know that....?"He goes on to explain what a Christian is, what has actually happened, what the significance of that is, what being made a child of God is going to entail. Justification by faith is only the beginning. Yes, heaven awaits. But there is so much more to it...Read the exhortations as exhortations. You don't exhort someone to behave in a manner that is against their character. A man in Adam is a slave to sin, he cannot do anything but no matter how hard he tries. A child of God (thus made) has a new character. Part of him which was dead to God has been brought to life. That part of him, his spirit, is now receptive to God, can hear God can understand and agree with the way of God. He is not a natural man anymore - the natural (spiritually dead) man being unable to understand - the things of God are foolishness to him. The new man still walks, is contained within a sinful flesh however. A struggle commences between the Righteous spirit and the sinful flesh. It is a fight we are exhorted to, ordered to fight. The born again person has been adopted into Gods family. And so he is EXHORTED to act like a child of God. Works don't save, they are simply actions which we are exhorted to do - on the basis of us now being who and what we are.Read the excitement and sheer willing in Pauls words..."You're an American, don't sell arms secrets to the Iranians, don't dodge your taxes, don't conspire against your government - ACT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE. You were once an enemy of America, an alien - but now no longer. You have the old masters mantras running through your head (fleshly deeds which you must (with the help of the holy spirit which you have received) put to death. But you belong now to a new master. You were bought at great expense. Remember that those old things belong no longer to you in your new guise, your newness of life. They are no longer compatible as they once were, with who you now are, no longer are you enslaved to them. If the son has set you free indeed - then grasp that fact: FREEDOM ya numbskull , live by that fact, prepare yourself (with his help) as would a bride for her wedding day! Be holy for he is holy. Act like that which you now are. Don't bring his Kingdom into disrepute. Hold your head up - for you are a Kings Son (adopted - not begotten: but loved the very same). Hire out the movie and watch the crowning at the end of Narnia if its visuals that do it better for you! But whatever you do I exhort you, for your good and his glory to - just do it!!!And if you don't you'll go to Hell...(Just kidding with the last line rR. Am checking if your still awake (I'm not). "In Christ" folk never will be condemned. Those in Christ will be judged according to what we do alright. But not in the sense that our salvation is affected by it. "For I am convinced..."NightThis message has been edited by iano, 04-May-2006 02:09 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 04-May-2006 10:29 AM

Yes that is what I mean by vail torn. Well that is what I am saying, how does one get to know Christ? Are we not to go out and make dicsiples of the world?
What happens if we do the opposite?Why do we have to make dicsiples, if God is the only one who can call us? Sure it does, you just admitted it, it's part of the package deal. It is also letters to specific churches with specific problems.The rest of your post, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. I think a lot of what we are saying is the same thing, except, you seem to think that only God can call us, and that we have nothing to do with that process.The problem I have with that, is that you now put yourself above all others who have not been called by God, or leave them wondering why God hasn't called them. That seems to be the opposite of a humble spirit. You also make it pointless to go and preach the gospel then. If only God calls us, then why bother?Please explain to me how God called you, so I can understand better. And if you like we can put this conversation in the great debate.

God already knows every single person who is saved (he knew before a person was born). He knows every attempt to disciple and every move the enemy makes to prevent it. He knows if I get lazy, sit on my butt and don't share "...because I want to watch the football" Every action, thought and deed of every person is already played out in Eternity. The game is already over. Just not yet in time. See this post which may perhaps illustrate the mystery of eternity. Its only a partial description if it is one at all. No temporal being can get his head around Eternity.http://EvC Forum: What are the odds of God existing? -->EvC Forum: What are the odds of God existing?In other words whether you do or do not share doesn't affect the final result - for the final result is already in. If you chose today not to share tomorrow because of what I have typed here now - then that won't change the final result - which already includes your decision based on what I've typed here. Mind bending heh Because he says so. We don't make them as such anyway. God uses us to deliver the gospel. The gospel is the treasure, we're just the jars of clay that carry it.....God choosing/ God's sovereign choice / God having mercy upon whom he will have mercy is only one side of the story. On the other we have God wanting that none should perish (he wants everyone - which means salvation is open to everyone)/Jesus came to seek and save the lost = everyone /For God so loved the WORLD = everyoneA paradox thus.If a man is saved the God is the one who did it. He uses people who were prepared to follow his instructions to share the gospel alright - but all the effective aspect of his salvation, that which reached into a recipients heart, melts it (whether slowly or quickly) and converts them - is done by him, enabled by him, powered by him. Even the desire a person may have to share the gospel comes from him. We do nothing without him.On the other hand, if a person is lost then they will have chosen that result completely by themselves. Satan will have tempted. Being tempted is not a sin however - responding to it is, and that is ours and ours alone. A person lost will have rejected Gods call, hardened their own heart to his call. That is the only way I have at present in best-aligning two undoubted biblical truths:Perfect grace unto salvation (Gods action) vs Perfect justice unto damnation (mans choice) The way open doesn't mean everyone goes through. Only those who are put into Christ receive his spirit. For those not in Christ, the Holy Spirit doesn't dwell in them. We probably agree on that. We have. God is drawing all men. He does the drawing - his 'effort'. All we can do is pull away. If we are drawn in, it is because we pulled away insufficiently. We can only do negative. He does the positive. Fisher of men... In taking a trawl through Roman I was pointing out a way to notice the key points in the argument as Paul builds it up.Gentiles (the ungodly) are guilty - a gentile doesn't care about works because he doesn't believe salvation is necessaryJews (the self-righteously godly) are guilty - such a one realises there is/maybe a God and salvation is/maybe necessary but thinks that salvation is works based.note: a person can be in Christ and confused about the gospel and still think salvation dependant on works. This doesn't affect their position in Christ - salvation is still theirs - whether they know it or not. In Christ is the only criteria for salvation.Both Jew and Gentile are equally lost thus - there is no difference. Righteousness doesn't stem from man ("all your (self)righteousness are as filthy rags"). Righteousness must come from God. He is the only one who has righteousness available which is sufficient to meet his standard. Christs righteousness. God did everything to obtain that which is necessary for us. It is his to offer as a gift if he choses to - not ours to earn. For there is nothing anyone can give to earn such a precious thing. It is an insult to even think we could.Works are important. They are described in Romans as important for all kinds of reasons, not least because it says "thank you" to God for his gift. There will be times when we will fall to our knees in thankfulness (when his spirit reveals to ours what it is he actually did for us). There will be times when we will sin abominably, spitting in his beautiful face. Whichever - a gift is a gift. If it were conditional on our thanking or level of thanking or trying our best to thank, then it wouldn't be a gift it would be something earned. A wage. But a wage is not a gift.(Remember man losing himself? "The wages of sin is death (man earns damnation by his evil works) but the gift of God is eternal life"Paying attention to the "what shall we say's" the "but now's", the "for's", the "therefore's" simply helps establish base reference points in the argument that Paul builds up throughout Romans I have found. Primarily this is what they were. But God used those situations to have written down what it is that applies at all times. The Epistles are talking to Christians. But all of it can talk to everyman. Take Romans 7: the "oh wretched man" piece. This is not applicable to Christians but applies to a man under the conviction of the law. A man on the point of conversion. A man brought close by God might read this and have this passage be the one that converts him. Only to go to the first line of Chapter 8 and be blown away.The prophets in the OT were often speaking into particular situations in their day. They didn't know that the words were necessarily prophetic for NT times. Same thing in the NT. I am a beggar who is telling other beggars where to find bread. If I appear to exhalt myself then let it be known that I do not. I am a filthy, manky, greasy, dirty sinner before God. Were it not for his grace>acton unto me and giving me his sons righteousness then in my filth and sin I would surely and rightly have perished. If some wonder why God hasn't called them then that is progress. The starting of a wish that God would call, reveal himself, a seeing something of the Gospel and being attracted to it. God is calling all. If a person does not reject it in their heart (as opposed to their intellect - which may, as mine did, fight all the way) then in Christ they will be put. In his good time. They might find the following prayer fits their current positionLord I don't know you
I don't even want to know you
But I want to want to know you.A person who can pray this from the heart does so at an apparently great distance from God. But the Father is everlooking out for his Prodigal son. Even if a great distance off, the Father will see and run to him. Real life prodigals however, will probably run away again. It can be a bruising experience. We are the ones who inflict the bruises on ourselves on the way to God however. Or inflict Hell on ourselves if we run away long and hard enough."God I need you, I see what I've done, I'm sorry for it, Thank you for what you've done for me"That's all there is to it really. But it must come from the heart and a heart hardened to God cannot pray such a prayer from the heart. God must melt it first - and that might hurt. Man will, I would hold, only be lost if he refuses to have his heart melted.Me, I didn't refuse. Why not? I couldn't bear the pain I would have had to undergo in order to nail my softened heart shut. My prayer is that all would relent. But the colder the heart gets to Gods call the less it is able to feel that pain. It gets numb. Not feeling any pain his call inflicts is not a good thing. The pain manifested itself in my case thus: I became increasingly aware (over years) that I wasn't a good man. It got very, very intense. It may differ for others. I written about my own experience a couple of times here along difference lines rR but can't remember where. This is my first post at EvC. Funny, you're in the post prior to mine!http://EvC Forum: The experience of converting -->EvC Forum: The experience of convertingA great debate would be er...great. I suggest we do a bible study in Romans. I hold that the gospel is therein contained. It would have to go slow though. Work is picking up again.Later dude

In some ways I agree with you, but I think this statement is mostly made in ignorance.Clearly God gives us choices to make, and some kind of free will. Just because He knows what will happen, doesn't mean that we are void of these choises. You pretend to understand how He lives in His demension, and how it relates to ours. You may be right, but you may be wrong, I may be crazy (but it's a lunitic your looking for).Id our free will limited to just decideing if it's from God or not? Or where all the free will decisions made at one point in time, and now we are just playing them out? Just what exactly is the corelation between His ways, and our ways? For His ways are not our ways.Believeing there are no real decisions to make, and they are all made already may even be a trap of the enemy of your soul. Who knows?Yet, you wake up every morning and make decisions without thinking of all this. Why bother if He is omnipotant, and can call whoever he pleases? Yes, I know, that is what I have been saying. I find that whole paragraph judgemental.Define salvation.
Describe conversion.
Describe why you think you have the right to claim you are saved, and someone else isn't. (don't just describe why you are saved) I disagree. According to your own logic, God will use us to bring forth the gospel. Then the devil can use us to counter that.
If God is truely in charge of everyting, then it's all from Him, so some are used for honor, and some are used for dishonor. No we don't agree.I have a real problem with you saying only those who receive His spirit, like we are special or something. God loved the world.The Holy Spirit dwells in everyone, He is the one who convicts people when they do wrong.They may not be blessed by the spirit if they are living sinful lives, or the spirit may not be activated in them by ways of the gifts, but it is there. This statement assumes we have no interaction with anyone on earth? If they think that their salvation depends on works, then they are not really in Christ, just like someone who denies Christ, both are guilty. Leaving very few who will go to heaven, but God loves the world. Did He create all of us to burn in hell Is this some kind of evil joke? It has to make sense somehow.Before I felt the Holy Spirit, I never felt like I was going to hell, I still feel that way, and now that I believe I have felt this Holy Spirit, I do not think I was wrong.Being saved is a continuing process, not a one time decision. With true acceptance of Christ comes true repentance. One cannot go on sinning, and believing in Christ, and be saved, can they?If they can, then there is the possibility that people who don't believe in the "name of Jesus" are going to heaven also.Who are we to judge? Yes, a gift. Pretty good answer. Again that is why I presented the molesting preists scenerio. A person could be hardened by the church, and blame God because they are now confused, and they got confused while looking for God.Charles knight may have been a good example of that. He was in search of something, but according to his experiences, the "christian godhead" wasn't God. I remember that post!Funny I was responding to charles knight, and I just mentioned his name before reading that. coinsidence!! Well I felt the Holy Spirit at 38, so we got something in common.Peace out, enjoy the weekend.

Hardly. God knows everthing before it happens you may agree. From that SINGLE fact, all kinds of things (although not everything) can be concluded.Sure, we makes choices but whatever they may turn out to be (in our 'time') He already knows what they will be. This doesn't preclude us making choices in Time. Nor does it mean the choices are not ours to make - as you say.Another example: judgement is not a trial - it's a judgement. Which is the public proclaimation of a decision made. A trial is were evidence is presented to the judge and is considered by the judge. But all the evidence is already in for God. All the choices we have yet to make are already known.Thus He has already made His Judgement. I say this for His Judgement cannot not be known to Him. Simply knowing he know everything allows one to conclude this.Time is simply part of the mechanism which God used to save people. (and all who 'will be' saved are already known to him. Their destination is known to him before they are even born) The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It needs delivering to man so that the power of it can act on a man. God sometimes uses man to deliver it. Why this way? I don't know. But God has always dealt with man through man so it is consistant with his way. Hopefully it is not me who you find to be judgemental. If its Him then this from Romans 9 "Define salvation." Being in Christ"Describe conversion". the point at which God takes a person out of Adam and puts them into Christ."Describe why you think you have the right to claim you are saved, and someone else isn't. (don't just describe why you are saved)"God put me in Christ. Thats how I know I am saved. Having been in Adam and being now in Christ, I am in a position to comment. I can recognise when a person most definitely is not in Christ (which means he is still in Adam). I cannot recognise it when the situation is fuzzy however - a person doesn't have to know they are in Christ to be in Christ for example. Often I tell though, not because I am better than anybody (I'm not) or smart or any such thing. For example, a person who says "Jesus is a demon" is not in Christ and is thus not saved - yet. If they were in Christ they couldn't say that. I don't say that that person will never be in Christ. I was 38. I could have been 78 - in which case we wouldn't be having this conversation yet. If a person being damned is the result of any action or omission on the part of others then God is unjust. You cannot punish someone for something someone else did or didn't do to/for them. Perfect justice can only result if damnation is earned wholly by the person.God is in charge of everything alright. But he chose to give us free will. And free will is made void if man has nothing to chose from. Thus God supplied a choice: to reject salvation or not. If we don't reject then he will draw us to safety.The Gospel is fuel which will pull us towards salvation. God applies the throttle.Evil is the fuel which allows man to reject God. Man applies the throttle. The receipt of the Holy Spirit on conversion as INDWELLING: his function is unique to Christians: confirmation of their position, enabling the battle against the flesh etc He doesn't indwell, he acts upon. A different thing altogether.. The Spirit doesn't dwell in all men rR. His role in non-Christians is to convict them of sin, their need for righteousness and of the judgement to come. Any 'gifts' manifest by a non-Christian are the powered by Satans realm. For any person who is not in Christ is under the sway of and resides in, the dominion of the evil one. Their are only 3 things relevant here.God
A mans spirit
A mans spirits choice.All the rest is a mechanism on which man makes his choic: Reject/don't reject. There is ample to suggest those that are saved will be in the minority (God knew how many before he wrote the Bible and so was in a position to comment). There is talk of the narrow gate through which few will pass and the wide through which many will pass. Only a remenant surviving is a very common theme too.God didn't create people in order to burn them. He created them so that they could come into a relationship with him. If they are lost it is of their own doing. I might sound hard here. I might sound as if I am standing on some pedestal looking down from my lofty position and hurling rocks. I am not This causes me anguish. It causes me to return time and again to why?And when I consider that there was no better way to allow a person a choice (otherwise I believe God would have done it - for he loves us) I have no choice but to state it the way it is. Harsh though it may come across as.God is Love. God is wrath, God is Just. His way must be consistant with how he is. God cannot not be God. I don't disbelieve you. I never thought I was going to Hell either. I never considered it. It was only when I turned and he took me in that I realised Hell exists. And that I am not going there. In one sense you are right. A saved person is undergoing a process (called sanctification - or being made holy). But only people who are saved are being saved. Its the eternal/time interface againRepentance unto salvation is a once off affair. Repenting of ones attempt at operating independantly of God and accepting his rightful place in our lives. Him on the throne, us his subjects. Him as father, us as sonsRepentance ongoing is another thing altogether. That belongs to the process of sanctification - which only applies to those who have repented unto salvationA person can be in Christ and sin. They are sure to do so. This does not affect their salvation. But they can and will be disciplined by their Father. His final sanction can be as serious as removing them from life on earth Sin/level isn't the criteria for salvation. In Christ/in Adam. Thats it. As I said, it is possible to know a person is in Adam. God can counter all this. If something outside causes a person to turn away further, God can increase his call to that person to compensate for that. He can ensure that his call is sufficient so that all external influences are compensated for and that the only rejection left is the rejection of that persons own heart. Them and God - all else countered. Charles life isn't over yet. He may still come.These posts are getting seriously long rR. If you'd like to go on shall we pare it down to an issue or two? Your pickCheers,Ian

This picture can be developed a little. Its a tug of war. God pulling in one direction, sinful man pulling in the other. If sinful man stops pulling then God will draw him to His side.Death is someone cutting the rope. Man, who was pulling using the energy of evil will fall backwards into the pit which exists behind him. God, who was pulling using the energy of his love will too, fall into the pit dug behind him.Both pits are in fact the same one. The pit is called Gods wrath. And both man and God will meet there

Malachi II describes an event that happened to him when he was about 10 (IIRC). His description of it mirrors an event in my life about 15 years ago.It was as if someone put a warm hand around my cold heart and gave it a squeeze. The squeezing felt like Love Unimaginable.An then it was gone again. Although I forgot about it, the level of love indicated how little love my own heart contains (still)Does that mirror your own experience

I don't think so, then your assuming.Sure God knows everything before it happens, but take a look at the old testament, and how God made people play things out in our time. People had opportunities to change their minds, and change nations, from their predestined course. He gave them many choices to make.So just because God knows all, doesn't mean that this thing called life will not play out in our time. At some point during creation, the choices were made, whether it was in time, or some other way. So then if the gospel can be delivered through man, so can other things.If God called you to deliver the message, and you didn't deliver it, wouldn't you expect to be accountable for it, and it's damaging affects? As long as your not judging who is saved or not.Does the verse: 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Free us from accountability of our actions?Also if God hardens people, then who gets into heaven? Ok, now we are gtting somewhere. I understand. You are led by the Spirit. The Spirit gives you wisdom, if you are paying attention. But you said earlier that I made a good point in saying that a just God would judge us based on what we know.Isn't what we know based on what is around us?I believe God puts His laws on our minds and hearts, sure, but they get decieved, and we could be living decieved lives. Are we responsible for our own deception?For 38 years, I wasn't sure about God, I really didn't know, or have a fair chance to know, so I had to go by my heart, and what I was taught.I made a lot of mistakes along the way, and I regret them, but only to a point. Because I believe those very mistakes is what made God known to me. It was all God's will.But that doesn't free those people who kept me from God, from their accountability, or does it free those who battle with me now. Unless all the blame falls on the devil. With free will comes responsibility. I am saying different. I say both can lead you to God.
Nothing happens except by the will of the Father. That must include evil.How can one appreciate the light, unless they have been in the dark awhile?Look what happen to job, and you start to understand where I am coming from. I guess so, you could say it that way. I might be mis-understanding you, but Satan does not have any real power.The gifts are ours, God does not take them back. It's up to us how to use them. Satan can only accuse us, and try to decieve us. Yea, how does he make those choices, based on what? What about the people He choose to harden? But if my whole life was a chain of events that led me to be saved, then I was being saved all along. I think not. Your example was someone who says Jesus is a devil. I underatsnd the metaphore, but how did he come to a point in his life where he could say Jesus is a devil? Wouldn't a just judge take that into account? Wouldn't he make those people accountable for the things they did to this person to make him say such a thing?People sometimes hate me, mostly just in here, or hate what I say. But I don't hate them back. I see them the way God sees them, I ask for that from God. God gives me revelation and shows me how and why they got that way.I can't judge where people are at completely. I can only say for myself, at this point in time, and life that if I was to deny God, and start doing bad things, I would probably be sent to Hell.So not knowing, allows me to put it in God's hands. I will just do my part, and not even think about who is going, and who is not. Yes, ok, but take into account that God will harden who's heart's He wants to, and by your own admission, people can be pulled away from God by the actions of others, then I will not judge who is, who isn't and who is on the way to be.I believe there are people who know the gospel, but have suffcient reasons not to believe in it. Which leaves us in a very complicated world, which it is.

No. I was always a good person, and I believed in the "greater good".I am a bit stubborn, and I think God had to use the things in my life to show me His ways, so that I could understand. I am not done learning.

We agree we have choices. All I'm saying is it that all the choices we will make are known already. God knew what they would be doesn't make them any less ours. God didn't pre-destine our thought in the sense that he made them be what they are. He simply knew what free-willed individuals would choose.Point being, is that God know who will be saved and who not. I will be judged on the basis of all what I do (just not unto damnation). But a persons salvation cannot rest on me. If I don't do it God can find someone else who will. It would be unjust to punish someone for something I didn't do. It is only just to punish someone for something they did themselves. Or someone who volunteered to take the punishment for someone else. Paul is rebuking someone who would dare to question God. If God wanted to do it this way then that is good enough for him. This is not to say this is what God has done. We don't have any rights - we are only created. God could create us for any reason he likes and thats good enough for him. He doesn't have to refer to or explain himself to anybody. It illustrates well the problem of sinful man. He shakes his puny fist at God - not realising who it is who shakes it and who it is he shakes it at. Mans heart rejects Gods call. It gets hardened. Man is the one who desires to close his heart. God is the one who obliges him.In other words...He softens a mans heart in response to a man not rejecting his call. He hardens a mans heart in response to a man rejecting his call. Maybe. In Christ is the criteria. Agreed? I can recognize a person not in Christ without paying any attention at all to what the Spirit says. Its like learning your 9x tables. Once you know them you know them - you don't have to pay attention to be able to know that 9x9=81. There is plenty more to learn however I don't think so. Its an issue of the hearts response to his call. God said that a day would come when he would do this. This is a covenant, a promise, a contract. It is limited to the house of Israel (which can shown to be Christian). It is not a universal convenant It is not yours to decide fair chance. It is his. I get what you say. God uses our lawbreaking to lead us to Christ True, those people will be called to account. But what they do doesn't prevent you from being saved - otherwise Salvation is not from God but from man. Total. If we are lost then it is our fault alone. We won't get the luxary of being able to point at others and say "If they had explained better then I would have gotten it" That's a loophole in the law. And God doesn't do loopholes. Saved/Unsaved. No Purgo If nothing happens except by the will of the father then where's our free will. It just evaporates in this case. Fine. But its not just what is said. There are marked differences in the action of the Holy Spirit in an unbeliever (the Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness and the judgement to come) and the believer (assurance of salvation, enabling a war with the flesh) 'Real'? Been tempted recently rR. That is not a sin. Its what we do with it that is the sin. Satan has power alright. He opposes the call that God puts on a man. This is fair when you think. If there was no opposition then a man couldn't help but be drawn to God. Thus no free will in being made a Son. If you had died before the point of being put into Christ then you wouldn't have been saved. If you die the day after being put into Christ then you would be saved. If you survive 10 years after being put into Christ then you are saved (your eternal condition) and being saved (your time condition - you don't have to be saved from something which has yet to happen - Judgement)But your right. God knows if a person will be saved - thus they cannot die before they are! You absolve the person for their own decision. If they are abused by a priest and blame God - but at the same time ignore the call of God which lets his heart (not his intellect) know that God had nothing to do with it, then that is their issue. The point was: this person is not in Christ. That is the criteria for salvation. The Judge takes into account all the evidence over all ones life - not just the abuse of a priest. Like I said - God can counteract any influence so as to ensure that the end decision is a persons own. Good. They didn't get that way - they were born that way. Man is born hating God. If you talk about God then people are going to display hatred towards you because of what you try to represent. Him. They are doing precisely what one would expect them to. For that reason it is not good to hate back. They cannot help it. They are slaves to sin, under the sway of the evil one. (not that he can be blamed - by rejecting God people choose to remain fighting on Satans side. I explained this above. A man choses to reject and God says "Thy will be done" and hardens their heart a little more. If they don't reject they are in effect saying "Thy will be done" and he softens it a little.These posts are still way too long rR. Let this be the last line-for-line reponse from both of us if you would. Would you like to pick something of interest to you and we can focus on?

this paper I just got back with an "A" and "A real pleasure" written on it. There were no other marks by the teacher but other mistakes of my own doing.W. E.B. DU BOIS ------------------------------------------------------REMUS the TrainbearerBy Brad McFallW.E.B. Du Bois’ cultural prescription relies on a concept of evolutionary- self progress as a ruleable law of nature. Despite the appearance of abolished wrongs legally sacrificed by horrible deaths during the Civil War, Du Bois clearly cognized that a sociological division retained, and even with the egression of any supposed emancipation. This divided but not fully ameliorated structure was clearly visible to him within the praxis of actual Jim Crow laws. The default position in evolutionary theory however is against the supposition of Du Bois’ treatment of the cultural praxis, no matter how high-minded and preferable the moral response of Du Bois was. There is no doubt that Du Bois had captured the human cycle towards improved living, in his book “The Souls of Black Folk” but his means did not meet the end he sought. Darwin had thought long and hard about progress in biology, a couple of decades before Du Bois and denied such kinds of changes, for what later came to be known as “geographic races” or what for Du Bois divides, in-itself, into a “color-line”. Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard continued this vein of thought into the present millennium on how races evolve, siding with Darwin rather than the general opinion of likes of Du Bois. The Jim Crow laws are gone but the progress Du Bois hoped for did not fully materialize. There continues to be a separation where the hope for an end to the double life was to have been substantiated rather then become somewhat commercialized as has occurred.The song “My Way’s Cloudy” opens the chapter titled “Of the Meaning of Progress” marking musically the dispensation Du Bois establishes with crucial narrative at the issue of South States right revolution of 1876(1) his notion of progress, under the metaphor of a shadow.(2) In his mediation, the material “veil” can be broken through beyond, as Du Bois relates said “shadow,” to reconstruction and the Freedman’s Bureau via a “new situation in a shadowy relief”.(3) He further works his meditation with “Progress in human affairs is more often a pull rather than a push.”(4)If one takes the notion of better education as either a push or a pull, where a push merely moves someone out of their center versus a pull, that brings someone else’s center to a new place, rather than simply moving one near the pushee or pullee location, then one might recognize indeed Dubois’ “pull” and identify with it, as the need to actually get the laborers off their land and into college (see Chapter 13 “Of the Coming of John” in general) rather than simply “push” them around in their own owned land, by teaching them in common schools and enticing them with a notion of better education . In other words one might read Chapter 4 (“Of the Meaning of Progress”) to the effect that one has to pull the laborer off the land, because a “push” leaves Josie dieing and little to no progress, even though she is given the clue of a better education.(5)This situation of Du Bois’ position seems to be more than a mere analogy and it must be “progress” as a concept, for Du Bois himself, as he objects to Washington’s version of “mutual progress”.(6) Du Bois concept is a goal directed progress directed to the path rather broad than narrow (7) and one that will potentially lead the Negro out of its childish ways.(8) Generally it appears that Du Bois sought to link culturally what S.J. Gould suggests that every evolutionary biologist should “never loose sight of”(9) and thus Darwin’s contradictory statements on progress (10) can not be resolved in Du Bois terms through a rejecting of a mutual progress, of Washington (which might fall within Darwin’s view), but could be integrated to Du Bois’ terms only if Darwin is mistaken about biological change and that mutations themselves (“saltations”) rather than natural selection lead to any changes thought by humanity as “progress.”Du Bois has the idea that criticism contrary to his quite well elaborated vision of sociological history occurs from the perspective of the “Negro a priori”(11). Immanuel Kant with whom the a priori is mostly associated had an apprehension relevant to Du Bois concept of racial self-progress in his “Conflict of the Faculties”(Kant 45)
“The Concept and Division of the Lower Faculty”
“The lower faculty is the rank in the university that occupies itself with teachings which are not adopted as directives by order of a superior, or in so far as they are not so adopted. Now we may well comply with a practical teaching out of obedience, but we can never accept it as true simply because we are ordered to (de le Roi). This is not only objectively impossible ( a judgment that ought not to be made), but also subjectively quite impossible (a judgment that no one can make). For the man who, as he says, wants to err does not really err and, in fact, accept the false judgment as true; he merely declares, falsely, an assent that is not to be found in him. So when it is a question of the truth of a certain teaching to be expounded in public, the teacher cannot appeal to a supreme command nor the pupil pretend that he believed it by order. This can happen only when it is a question of action, and even then the pupil must recognize by a free judgment that such a command was really issued and that he is obligated or at least entitled to obey it; otherwise, his acceptance of it would be an empty pretense and a lie. Now the power to judge autonomously - that is, freely (according to principles of thought in general) - is called reason. So the philosophy faculty, because it must answer for the truth of the teachings it is to adopt or even allow, must be conceived as free and subject only to laws given by reason, not by government.

​

But a department of this kind, too, must be established at a university; in other words, a university must have a faculty of philosophy. Its function in relation to the three higher faculties is to control them and, in this way, be useful to them, since truth (the essential first condition of learning in general) is the main thing, whereas the utility the higher faculties promise the government is of secondary importance We can also grant the theology faculty’s proud claim that the philosophy faculty is its handmaid (though the question remains, whether the servant is the mistress’s torchbearer or trainbearer), provided it is not driven away or silenced. For the very modesty [of its claim] - merely to be free, as it leaves others free, to discover the truth for the benefit of all the sciences and to set it before the higher faculties to use as they will - must commend it to the government as above suspicion and, indeed, indispensable.”Du Bois was not driven away nor silenced. In this respect the work and life of Du Bois responds to the questions that Kant said “must come up for discussion some day” (12). He helped to draw needed attention to the color-line by subjecting the “philosophy faculty” to the “theology faculty.”However Du Bois in rejecting teleologically Washington’s utilitarian position(13)( on a subjected philosophy (whether coming from any of the three “higher faculties” (theology, law, or medicine) that Kant encompassed a priori)) does not leave “Washington” “free” even though he frees nearly everything and anything else. Du Bois drove away the very progress he sought by becoming a trainbearer (after the fact) (to use Kant’s “words”) rather than a torchbearer(before a fact).
“The Distinctive Characteristic of the Theology Faculty”
“The biblical theologian proves the existence of God on the grounds that He spoke in the Bible, which also discusses His nature(and even goes so far into it that reason cannot keep up with the text, as, when, for example, it speaks of the incomprehensible mystery of His threefold personality). But the biblical theologian as such cannot and need not prove that God Himself spoke through the Bible, since that is a matter of history and belongs to the philosophy faculty. [Treating it] as a matter of faith, he will therefore base it- even for the scholar - on a certain (indemonstrable and inexplicable)feeling that the Bible is divine. But the question of the divine origin of the Bible (in the literal sense) must not be raised at all in public discourses directed to the people; since this is a scholarly matter, they would fail completely to understand it and, as a result, would only get entangled in impertinent speculations and doubts. In such matters it is much safer to rely on the people’s confidence in their teachers. The biblical theologian can also have no authority to ascribe a nonliteral - for example, a moral - meaning to statements in the text. And since there is no human interpreter of the Scriptures authorized by God, he must rather cont on a supernatural opening of his understanding by a spirit that guides to all truth than allow reason to intervene and (without any higher authority) maintain its own interpretation. Finally, as far as our will and its fulfillment of God’s commands is concerned, the biblical theologian must rely not on nature - that is, on man’s own moral power (virtue) - but on grace ( a supernatural but, at the same time, moral influence), which man can obtain only by an ardent faith that transforms his heart - a faith that itself, in turn, he can expect only through grace. If the biblical theologian meddles with his reason in any of the tenets, then, even granting that reason strives most sincerely and earnestly for that same objective, he leaps (like Romulus’s brother) over the wall of ecclesiastical faith, the only thing that assures his salvation, and strays into the free and open fields of private judgment and philosophy. And there having run away from the Church’s government, he is exposed to all the dangers of anarchy. But note well that I am here speaking only of the pure (purus, putus) biblical theologian, who is not yet contaminated by the ill-reputed spirit of freed that belongs to reason and philosophy. For as soon as we allow tow different callings to combine and run together, we can form no clear notion of the characteristic that distinguishes each by itself.”(Kant, 37)
Du Bois may have made this willful mistake because he thought that evolutionary racial progress could substitute for the advantage a one such as Kant recognized( that the legal faculty has something essential over and through the theological faculty((Kant 39))).So, rather than relying on grace and special revelation of the music of African-Americans, the gospel and otherwise and what it might by itself generalize over social time, as Kant might have comprehended, Du Bois attempts to list what occurred to justify his trend to desired racial improvement(14). Regardless, he let the “feeling” of the divine, leap over the wall of ecclesiastical faith precisely as Kant warned against. Despite Du Bois’ ever present embellishments that his work was not one of vanity, in truth, Du Bois subverted the philosophical superiority of theology over the philosophy of law for the particular laws of rights to vote and separation of powers etc of a particular government, the USA. So, because he was willing to envision the legal “ faculty “ of a particular country, over and above the theological “faculty” of any, in other words, that one must have the right to vote and must vote, before other changes can occur, his notion of progress was clearly one like Lamarck’s rather than Darwin’s where adaptation (voting) is a separate force than progress (grace induced changeability).(15)In the end, Du Bois leapt over the wall rather than causing motion through the veil. Thus I name W. E. B. Du Bois, REMUS (the brother of Romulus) who was an important trainbearer of Kant’s unfulfilled conflict introgressing the discriminatory color-line and Jim Crow laws, but a brother nonetheless who emerged not far enough, not because he did not think had gone further but since the regimen his book, “The Souls of Black Folk” provides, can only prevent and not cure, the wound inflicted sociologically no matter what the truth biologically of race relations is and was. This becomes more and more evident as the human population growth problem rears its ugly head, today and tomorrow, but by this future-time, the veil is and would have already been dropped (both figuratively and literally) and the mother figure in consequence will have torqued her neck beyond easy recognition of a familiar hope, since a spectral color had been added. A supplemental can written showing how a modified scholarship of biology might recall Du Bois from the very red clay he buried his own concept of progress in, but then again, Harvard scholarship, would have to be mistaken this time rather than at being at least partially responsible for the vision that sought to and succeeded to some extent to apply edification towards and through the sprit and history of Du Bois’ life.Kant’s conflict remains as showing that the physical regimen which is all that Du Bois orates for morally, can not resolve completely the social issues derived from a former culture of slavery but can only prevent further abuses . It can not cure - unless of course there is evolutionary progress - Du Bois does not show this - he only shows two sides of the religious black man plus more and the difference of white and black culture in the US. It would have to be that whatever pragmatic hope or practicality that Du Bois embodied deep down to his soul is acquired rather than inherited. The view of one of Darwin’s correspondents at Harvard, A. Hyatt who thought necessary progress is biologically true is accepted no longer, even by the most liberal evolutionists of our day. There is no indication that special mutations in the African-American race are going to help them anymore than the Chinese, as the number of people presses up against the agriculture capacity of a technological society that is slightly more equal thanks to the likes of W.E.B. Du Bois.Footnotes-1-(Du Bois 11) “A million black men started to vote themselves into the kingdom. So the decade flew away, the revolution of 1876 came, and left the half-free serf weary, wondering, but sill inspired. Slowly but steadily, in the following years, a new vision began gradually to replace the dream of political power - a powerful movement, the rise of another ideal to guide the unguided, another pillar of fire by night after a clouded day. It was the ideal of “book-learning.””2-(Du Bois 8 )“I remember well when the shadow swept across me.”, “I had thereafter no desire to tear down the veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt, and lived above it in a region of blue sky and great wandering shadows”, (Du Bois 9 )“The shadow of a might Negro past flits through the tale of Ethiopia the Shadowy and of Egypt the Sphinx”, p13 “Men call the shadow prejudice, and learnedly explain it as the natural defense against crime, the “higher” against the “lower” races. P 14 “Nevertheless, out of the evil came something good, - the more careful adjustment of education to real life, the clearer perception of the Negroes’ social responsibilities, and the sobering realization of the meaning of progress.”3-(Du Bois 20 )“Three characteristic things one might have seen in Sherman’s raid through Georgia, which threw the new situation in shadowy relief: the Conqueror, the Conquered, and the Negro.”4-(Du Bois 72 )“Progress in human affairs is more often a pull than a push, surging forward of the exceptional man, and lifting of his duller brethren slowly and painfully to his vantage-ground.”5-(Du Bois 57) “My journey was done, and behind me lay hill and dale, Life and Death. How shall man measure Progress there where the dark-faced Josie lies?”6-(Du Bois 36) “To gain the sympathy and cooperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington’s first task; and this, at the time Tuskegee was founded, seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And yet ten years later it was done in the word spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise”(2) is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted it in different ways . ”7-(Du Bois 37) “The criticism that has hitherto met Mr. Washington has not always been of this broad character. In the South especially has he had to walk warily . In the North the feeling has several times forced itself into words, that Mr. Washington’s counsels of submission overlooked certain elements of true manhood, and that his educational programme was unnecessarily narrow.”8-(Du Bois 61) “To-day it makes little difference to Atlanta, to the South, what the Negro thinks or dreams or wills. In the soul-life of the land he is to-day, and naturally will long remain, unthought of, half forgotten; and yet when he does come to think and will and do for himself, - and let no man dream that day will never come, - then the part he plays will not be one of sudden learning, but of words and thoughts he ahs been taught to lisp in his race-childhood.”9-(Gould 469) “Evolutionary biologists should never loose sight of a cardinal principle linking history and function - that historical origin and immediate utility represent independent subjects with no necessary connection (see Chapter 11 for an extended discussion of this principle).”10-(Gould 467) “Darwin’s dilemma can be stated easily: The bare-bones mechanics of the theory of natural selection provides no rationale for progress because the theory speaks only of adaptations to changing local environments. (The morphological degeneration of a parasite may enhance local adaptation as surely as any intricate biomechanical improvement in a bird’s wing.) Moreover, Darwin regarded the banishment of inherent progress as perhaps his greatest conceptual advance over previous evolutionary theories - and he said so, often and forcefully, as in this epistolary comment, previously cited on page 373, to the American progressionist paleontologist Alpheus Hyatt on December 4, 1872: “After long reflection I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exist”(F.Darwin, 1903, vol.1, p344).”11-(Du Bois 74) “We must not forget that most Americans answer all queries regarding the Negro a priori, and that the least that human courtesy can do is to listen to evidence.”12-(Kant vii ) The translator said, “The theme of a conflict between philosophical and theological faculties appears in Kant’s correspondence as early as 1793. Having expressed his distrust of the biblical theologian who wants to overstep the limits of his authority and pronounce upon purely philosophical writings, he notes that the worst thing about the affair is that the philosopher, instead of resisting the theologian’s claim, comes to an understanding with him. In a letter to J.G. Kiesewetter of December 13, 1793, he says that this sort of coalition and the false peace resulting from it “must come up for discussion one day” “
13- (Du Bois 41) “Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life.”14-(Du Bois 42) “In these years there have occurred:
1. The disfranchisement of the Negro.
2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro.
3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for the higher training of the Negro.”15-(Gould 478) “In summary, Darwin’s link of progress to biotic competition completes his argument against evolutionary systems (like Lamarck’s) that propose separate forces for progress and adaptation, and that, as an unintended result, fall into the disabling paradox analyzed in Chapter 2:”WORKS CITEDDu Bois, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folk. Barnes and Noble Classics: New York. 2003.Gould , Stephen Jay. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press:Cambridge. 2002Kant, Immanuel. The Conflict of the Faculties. University of Nebraska Press:Lincoln and London.1979(Immediate thoughts after reading your comments): I do not know how Du bois treats the work of James, because though I might have read about James and Darwin in the past, I can not recall any direct quotes or positions of James. Given Gould’s statements on progress, “the ladder”, and REJECTION of Lamarck due to “Darwin’s good ideas” (page SET p192 last paragraph in section) it is possible for Du Bois to still be influenced by a process of evolutionary self-progress while still under some influence by James, even if James was a strict Darwinian supporter, like Gould. Gould is referring to a change in biology that occurred in the40s and 50s as Lamarckian biologists, such as his teacher , and Dean”” of modern biology MAYR transitioned through intellectually (from Lamarck to Darwin) Mayr makes references to the effect that this happened to many of his generation (the generation of my Grandfather, who studied genetics and was the first “science” teacher at SUNY Fredonia (there was already only a physics teacher there before him and it was Stan, my granddad that had introduced me to Evolution as a child). If Du Bois read Lamarck in the French Original he may have got his notion of racial self-progress directly there, no matter what Harvard was doing during his time. Harvard was moving away from the position of it’s Museum curator, Louis Agassiz who wrote a defense of natural theology and special creation of species and criticized Darwin in the couple of decades before Du Bois was at Harvard. Gould makes the point of the giraffe stretching the neck is a popular misconception of Lamarck. IT WAS THE ONE I WAS TAUGT TOO!!!! So if Du Bois had read Lamarck he could have made his mind up for himself. I, contrary, to Gould, (I had lunch with SJ at Cornell in the 80s) think that Lamarck’s “TWO FACTOR” theory can exist by direct physical imposition whether that is by GOD or by simple physical ruleable law. In particular I am trying to express my opinion on how organisms translate in space and generate form-making traits as due to “constraints” effected between two different physical TORQUES, on created by the different motions of photons vs electrons and the other by moving subducted plates creating moving relations of metamorphic rock BETWEEN sedimentary and igneous differences in hardness AND MOVED contrarily by the BEHAVIORS (locomotions, dispersals, growths) of living biological entities. It would take me to the time to complete a Master’s Degree to attempt to marshal this thesis in Du Bois favor, but if I was so inclined to look into it it might be accomplished as accommodated.

because whatever the complexity is, it is simply laid in the tracks.