PART 3: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: EXPOSING ARISTOTELIAN INANITIES

This is a continuation of the comment thread on [deleted].

This is my latest comment there. It is also my reply to the exact same comment Chris left over here on the second post in this series, "Debate to Get at and to Show Truth is Christian."

Hi Chris,

To anyone who reads this, don't read in a mean spirited tone of voice. It's not there. If you read it in, it's coming out from your heart, not mine.

I prefer to handle replying in the order of the other person's comment when reasonable to do so. It makes it much easier to follow along and to see whether or not questions and points have even been addressed.

First though, I'd like to summarize while making points. I will attempt not to put words in your mouth so to speak. Although, we must allow for discussing the implications of what we feel, think, say, write, and do, which you agree with I know since you've pointed to implications yourself.

So, your post is centered on Paul's words, "grace through faith." In fact, it is centered on "through" — what that implies and means in your eyes. What you weren't and aren't doing is supporting the Faith Alone doctrine. You are not only refuting Faith Alone, you are taking another step in that you are saying faith does not save whether alone or not — whether (ostensibly in your eyes) credited to God or not. You are saying that faith is always and only human means, whereas grace bestowed by God is never either. Your position is that a human being's faith is his or her act, whereas God sheds God's grace by God's will alone. Furthermore, your position is that by holding that faith saves, whether such faith is alone or not, necessarily denies God the ultimate credit, which means such faith denies God glory.

My position is that faith saves and that in saying that, I am not denying God any credit or glory (which are the same thing), quite the contrary. To have faith in God is to give God the credit. Those who don't give God the credit don't have faith (real faith) in God.

I don't say Faith Alone not because the case for it is impossible but because to make such a case requires dismantling the doctrine and reconstructing the term "faith alone" putting it in a context that demands works (which faith does), something the Faith Alone doctrine as it has been historically put forth is designed to excuse (excuse not bringing forth).

Now, I understand about ordering and prioritizing. You've stated that you hold the proper ordering of things as necessary. I agree. I don't put bitter for sweet. While we do this, sort and order, we need to reconcile all of Jesus's teaching so that they are never ambiguous. If we find ambiguity, it indicates that we are missing something that is there for the asking. I have asked every question that ever came up to me, and have received answers in every case leading me to hold that Jesus's teachings contain zero hypocrisy and mislead in no way.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  (Matthew 22:37-39 KJVR)

Okay, so there it is: Order and priorities clearly established by Jesus. I completely agree with what he says. People will look at those two commandments and not consider that in order to understand what those commandments even mean, one needs the whole message — big and little picture at the same time.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19 KJVR)

The words "like unto it" and "least" throw people off only because they stop looking and seeing further what Jesus means in full. One can not love God with one's all while failing to keep to Jesus's version of the Golden Rule, which he says is the second great commandment. Jesus is saying that we must be consistent. Chris, you know that hypocrisy is inconsistency and that Jesus hates hypocrisy with as much passion as anyone ever has or ever will.

So, while we order things, which Jesus clearly does for the sake of reaching the minds and souls of people, let's not fall prey to fractured thinking and teaching. Let's teach wholeness, oneness of many: One soul of many souls necessarily including the whole of God. This is wholesomeness by the way (which I assume you know already but may not ever have seen it stated this way).

Wholeness, oneness, and God and the many in God are Jesus's positions that are not ambiguous. They are completely reconciled with the great commandment and the second and all the least. In fact, the great commandment is the summation of all the lesser and all the lesser add up to the great. That's full circle. It's critical if we are ever to bring forth — if the spirit is ever to bring forth through us, in us, etc. Those who refuse to get this will not ever be the pure in heart who see God. Let's not forget who is the greatest in Heaven. The greatest there is the least here (until there comes here, which it will by these words of Jesus and God).

Turning directly to your last reply above, firstly, the so-called principle or law of non-contradiction is Aristotelian logic. I don't hold with Aristotle, and neither does Jesus. This Aristotelianism in the churches is a hold over from Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle's logic is thoroughly mundane. I read Aristotle. I was unimpressed. Aquinas is held up by the Roman Catholics as one of the great answerers/defenders of their faith. I don't build upon his work at all. It was never needed. In fact, it was a distraction. He may have meant well. I suspect he did.

I asked you how you handle "love through grace." I chose the term "love" for the very reason that God is love and God's love saves even while you hold that God's grace saves, which I don't dispute. You did not focus in on "through" where, consistent with your position, grace is rendered here as a means. God grants Jesus grace. The Holy Spirit moves into us, as we accept the spirit, and grace is given to us, as faith is given to us. It can be turned to "faith through love" also. Doing this does not diminish credit or glory. It is higher, just as the least are first.

You need this opening. We all do. It leads to the unavoidable act of bringing forth together as the whole Church, which all Christians clearly have been expressly charged by Jesus with doing, something so far you have hesitated to address even though I've mentioned it in one form or another in nearly every comment I've left on this post and doesn't speak well of your disposition on that central matter thus far. Are you against giving and sharing all as the Church? Perhaps you'll get around to it: Better than never.

I asked you how you handle "love through grace" since you are focused upon shooting down salvation by faith via Paul's words "grace through faith." You missed the point, which is understandable, since this type of thinking is new to you. Yes God is love and love does save and it does come through grace, which is an act of love itself. Love and faith are on the same two way street.

God's love saves and God's grace saves. Grace Alone is only as good a point as one understands the oneness of love and grace. Once you allow for that oneness, nothing precludes faith from being seen as inextricably joined with both love and grace. Jesus has all three, and Jesus is one with God. We are to be one with Jesus and God. All three things are requisite: Love, grace, and faith in us.

God had faith in Jesus. Jesus had/has faith in certain of his followers. God is one. Love and grace are one even while they are two words. God is Jesus's father. Jesus is God's son. God and Jesus are one. I'm really restating here, just as Jesus restated, "feed my sheep" to drill it in.

Aristotle couldn't wrap his mind, and more importantly his heart, around this type of thinking. Let's not forget who trained Alexander the so-called Great — talk about leading someone astray. Aristotle was the antithesis of the Christ-mind. Aristotle taught worldly elitism in the extreme. Aristotle was not Jesus's teacher. He is not mine either especially where logic is concerned. His conclusions were from the dark side. Jesus's teaching definitely shoots down Aristotle's.

Now, read the following with all the care you can muster:

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. (Mark 8:35 KJVR)

Who is "the same" here? It is I if I lose my life for Jesus's sake and the Good News. I will save my life — no ifs, ands, or buts. Who am I though in this case? God dwells within. I am one with God. Now, do the Pharisees rush to Pilate to move him to crucify me for making myself God? Well, in a sense they do of course.

By taking this position, am I diminishing God? I am absolutely not. Neither was/is Jesus. Surely you can grasp this. You are striving for perfection that God will bestow upon you. You do know that only God is good. Therefore, only God is perfect. So, you strive to be God, as in one with.

That does not negate that God is love or that love saves or that grace saves or that Jesus saves or that my faith saves or my works (in context). Faith is a type of work and more afterall, as clearly demonstrated.

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.  (Matthew 18:11 KJVR)

You wrote, "But that can't be." You wrote, "...for the simple fact that if it weren't for love faith wouldn't even be an option." It is not an either or. Is it grace or love? You see, that's a nonstarter.

You've written that God's grace saves. You also wrote that love saves. Yet, you hold with Aristotelian non-contradiction that doesn't allow for synonyms to become one and the same. It doesn't allow Jesus to be like, and to become one with, God. Don't do that.

Don't use mundane Aristotelian logic where divine logic is required. Otherwise, you'll end up where Aquinas ended up that is not bringing forth by trying to answer those who judge according to the same logic used by atheists. You'll lose the debate with the likes of Christopher Hitchens and the other atheists.

What I see more than anything in your position is that you don't grasp oneness and the many at the same time in the same place, just as Aristotle didn't on this level.

Love isn't greater than faith. Love is faith. Love is grace. Love is mercy. Love is truth. Love is peace. Love is the real bread. Love is the blood of Jesus. Love is going to the cross. I cannot for the life of me comprehend how you don't see these things — Really. In fact, I believe you do see it but are holding back (mostly subconsciously — I'll give you that).

You see, this is exactly why I don't like Paul's writing relative to John's (and the others').

Paul tried to amaze all these people with what he thought was fleet logic, certain emphasis, and bragging in supposed humility, that ended up with centuries of people missing the oneness and not, I repeat, and not bringing forth. He set up these endless arguments, which Jesus did not. Afterall, the common people got Jesus's words, whereas the elitists (the so-called intellectuals) did not. Is this Paul's fault or those who twist him and use him selectively to avoid bringing forth or both?

You wrote, "...when you say you are saved by faith you are allowing faith to become your means of salvation rather than simply seeing it as a means to salvation."

So we're going to split "of" and "to" when faith comes directly from God? Why not just credit God, period, and be done with it and get on with the work at hand of feeding the lambs and sheep as one soul, the Church, rather than avoiding ending the unrighteous mammon?

I don't understand how you aren't retaining what I quoted earlier about belief.

Read this then. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.  (Mark 9:23 KJVR)

He says, "all things." He doesn't say except for saving oneself. He doesn't mean where oneself is apart from God. The point is that in order to reconcile what Jesus is saying here, you must be of the spirit of oneness.

Chris, this is the crux of the matter. This is it. This is why they murdered him. They murdered him for making himself God and leading the people to the same, which would have been the downfall of Jesus's murderers in either case.

They, his murderers, didn't get it completely but rather only enough to see it as the threat of threats to their upside down, worldly hierarchy. He was too over their heads. They thought he was attempting to usurp God they saw as being something other than Jesus sees. They were extremely selfish.

Jesus though will share his throne with me — Shocking thing to say, arrogant? It is not at all. God and Jesus share all. Jesus said be one with God and with Jesus. Share all.

Now, who has faith in God if God doesn't have faith in himself? God is faith along with all the rest of the good.

So I ask you, who's withholding glory here? Not I. If you say I am, you're not there.

Here's what I see going on with your position. You aren't allowing for multiple connotations of terms being used within different contexts. When James talks about faith and works, it's contextual. He's actually addressing someone in particular who was emphasizing faith without bringing forth. When he said that such faith is dead, he's saying that there is not such faith. Faith without works is dead. In the language of the revelation, such faith is false, imagination only, apart from God, unreal, etc.

There was a stream of thinking that we need to do nothing here other than profess (lip service, excuse). It still exists.

You wrote the following:

The bottom line is this:  whether you like Paul's writings or not, you are saved by grace.  Period.  Thus God gets all the Glory.  But when you say you are saved by faith you give yourself the glory for believing in God when in fact you wouldn't know that God existed if it weren't for Him telling you so!  So your only option is to say that you are saved by grace through faith as that gives God the glory that He deserves.

So, you say Jesus was and is wrong when he said, "...the same shall save it." You're not reconciling yourself with Jesus's words.

Look at just this bit of what you said that isn't out of context. It's a statement that you believe stands alone, but it doesn't. "...when you say you are saved by faith you give yourself the glory."

Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (Matthew 12:33 KJVR)

That's a prime example of Jesus saying to people to change their behavior that will perfect them. It doesn't say that God doesn't get the credit. I don't ever say that God doesn't get the credit including when I say that my faith in faith that is God saves me. Justice saves me. The bread and wine saves me. The water saves me. The fire saves me. These are spiritual terms. Giving credit where credit is due is huge with me. It's infinitely important.

Chris, is this "through" concept original with you or did you read it in some book or get it from some instructor's lecture?

Here's the deal. It isn't right for you to say that I don't give God all the credit for the right moves I make. I make the moves I make, and when they are right, God gets the credit. When they are wrong, I'm astray. There is nothing in anything Paul or you have written that can negate this.

In fact, I've shown the major, the central, problem for why the churches have failed miserably in following the commandment to bring forth. They have wasted time on Aristotelian inanities.

I asked repeatedly about the Christian Commons. You've dwelled on trying to support the point you made in your post. When will you answer me?

I won't post again here [on Chris's post] until you do in full. Don't disappoint.

May God bless you with the whole truth Chris. I mean that from the depths of my heart. I want the full, whole truth too. We both need it. Grace too without works is dead. I'm telling you that James agrees with that. The Christian Commons is not a work without real faith or grace or any of the rest of the good that is all God. Real faith is God.

God,

Tom Usher

Real Liberal Christian Church

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Chris [deleted]

      Tom,

      Your argument is based on a faulty premise that does not demarcate the characteristics of God from those characteristics that owe their existence to God.

      You see, you are arguing that because grace and love can save at the same time and in the same sense then that means love and faith can save at the same time and in the same sense. In other words because grace and love can be the source of salvation at the same time and in the same sense, then that means love and faith can be the source of salvation at the same time and in the same sense.

      The problem with this argument however, is that it fails to demarcate the intrinsic characteristics of God from extrinsic characteristics which owe their existence to God.

      You need to understand that when we are speaking of God we are talking about one who knows the end from the beginning. So how can faith be an intrinsic characteristic of God when it owes its existence to God? In other words, why would God have to have faith as an intrinsic characteristic while knowing everything?

      I hope you can see where I am going with this…

      Indeed, it is proper to say that love and grace save because they are the same source: that is, God. Hence, grace does not owe its existence to love; nor does love owe its existence to grace because both are intrinsic characteristics of God.

      Faith, on the other hand, is not an intrinsic characteristic of God because faith owes its existence to that which exists outside of itself. In other words, faith looks to something outside of itself for meaning and therefore owes its existence to something other than itself, which, in our case, would be God. Hence, God is the source of faith; and faith only exists because God’s intrinsic characteristics allow it to exist.

      So both love and grace owe their existence to nothing because they are intrinsic characteristics of God. Thus they are eternal! But faith is an extrinsic characteristic that wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for God’s love and grace. Therefore, faith is neither equal to love or grace as it owes its existence to them.

      Tom, keep in mind that if God didn’t create life faith would have no purpose. It is only because God created life that faith exists.

      Therefore, faith can’t be the source of salvation as it is dependent on the only one who can save: that is, God. So faith does not save you. God saves you. And because love and grace are intrinsic characteristics of God, you have an opportunity to exercise faith in Him who has the power to save.

      Please understand that you are, in essence, exercising your faith in the fact that God is both loving and full of grace. Are you not? So how then can you say faith saves you when if it weren’t for love and grace faith would have no purpose? Moreover, how can you say faith saves when it looks to love and grace as the source of salvation? Faith does not look unto itself as the source of what it looks to; rather, it looks outside of itself for meaning and purpose, which means it isn’t eternal like love and grace are!

      How is it that you can speak to me as though to give the impression that I am foolish and unlearned while making so grand a logical fallacy as this?

      My advice to you, Tom, is to be humble. Your pride is keeping you from seeing the truth, which is why you place so little value on the ministry of Paul. You have no idea what that man went through for the sake of the gospel that you so love.

      What you are saying about him is utterly shameful! And yet you have the audacity to belittle his ministry on the grounds that he didn’t place as much emphasis on bringing forth as you think you should have?

      Let’s take a look at what Paul brought forth, both for your sake and mine!

      “Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness—besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches.” (2 Corinthians 11:23-28 NKJV)

      What have you done for the sake of preaching the gospel that even comes close to this, Tom?

      And before you answer this question, keep in mind that Paul lost his head for the sake of the Church!

      Indeed, he brought forth more than you and I will ever know! And you should give him more respect than what you have been giving him. Your words against him are a reproach to Jesus Christ because Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and did what God called him to do with his life.

      You don’t even realize this but you are passing judgment on God by speaking evil of Paul in this way. And don’t say you aren’t speaking evil of Paul! That is precisely what you are doing! And your pride is keeping you from seeing this!

      Tom, the bottom line is this: you are in error, not only on the matter of properly identifying the source of salvation, but also in how you speak about Paul who was filled with and led by the Holy Spirit to live and die for Jesus Christ.

      Finally, it appears that you believe I am blind to what 'bringing forth' means for the Church; yet, if you would follow my blog more closely you would see that I have been following this theme throughout! For that is my calling, Tom! And I am doing the best that I can with what God has given me. It is unfortunate that you don’t appreciate that. But I am not at all surprised by this, since it is evident that you didn’t appreciate Paul either! And he was far greater a man of God than I will ever be!

      As I had mentioned before, I did not want to get into a debate, as I don’t like the spirit that debate engenders. And your haughty response to me surely justifies that point! So I would like to end this now, as I have more important things to do with the little time that there is left to prepare my heart for the time of trouble that is about to come upon us.

      I will give you no further response. And I kindly ask you to end this.

      I will leave you with these words however; and I hope you will allow the Holy Spirit to burn them into your heart!

      A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:35-37 NKJV)

    • Chris [deleted]

      I realize that I had said that I wouldn't give another response. However, I want to qualify something I said so that no one will misunderstand my point.

      When I said, "You don’t even realize this but you are passing judgment on God by speaking evil of Paul in this way. And don’t say you aren’t speaking evil of Paul! That is precisely what you are doing! And your pride is keeping you from seeing this!"

      I did not mean to imply that Paul is equal to God. What I meant by this is that because Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit, his ministry was reflective of what God led him to do for the Church.

      Therefore, to devalue the work that he did in Christ is to speak evil against the One who guided Him to carry it out!

      In other words, it is to pass judgment on God for leading him in that way.

    • I dispense here with the salutation, since you, Chris, have made clear your feelings,
      Again, to anyone who reads this, don't read in a mean-spirited tone of voice. It's not there. If you read it in, it's coming out from your heart, not mine.
      Before I begin, I will simply inform readers that you sent me private emails. I say that because they might otherwise wonder about some of the back and forth.
      Who know, I asked you over and over about the Christian Commons Project specifically, and you never answered. I also asked you if the "through" idea in grace through faith is original with you. You didn't answer. The reason you avoided the Commons question is self-evident. I wouldn't even be taking this position except you deleted the whole discussion over on your blog. You hold that it was divisive.
      Of course it was divisive. You make division sound as if it's inherently wrong in all contexts. Yet, you've divided yourself away from me, have you not? Jesus came to divide didn't he? I'm not the one who disengaged and demanded an end. Even after that, you felt bold enough to come here and submit a comment to not leave an impression about you concerning Kevin. I still don't have the door locked in your face.
      The discussion on your blog which discussion you killed was rightly dividing exactly what Jesus came to divide. Think what you will about it. Just don't be surprised when I don't buy what you're selling.
      So, God created faith but not grace you say. When did God create faith? You must doubt that Jesus has faith in God. Jesus was in the beginning too, and he does have faith in God. That should turn on the light for you, but it doesn't. Why? Well, you refuse to look at things outside Aristotelianism and your training to date. That's your choice. You can view God and Jesus and Paul in the light of Aristotle if you want to. I'm not buying it.
      Jesus had and has absolute faith in God. He knows. His faith and his knowledge are inextricable. They are in very truth, one. If you don't like this, there is nothing I can do about it. If you can't bring yourself to say openly here, "Oh, I never saw it that way before. Thank you for revealing that to me from the Holy Spirit that dwells within you, Tom," then that's that. If you don't want to expand your understanding of the term faith and its connotations and the multitude of contexts in which it may be used that go beyond what you have been heretofore led to appreciate or apprehend, so be it.
      Chris, you go your way and I'll go mine. Never the twain shall meet. If you think that this grace versus faith issue as you see it is a prerequisite to proper ordering of things and to giving God all the credit, go ahead.
      You used the term life in your comment to the exclusion of the understanding in the following:
      But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  (John 1:12-13 KJVR)
      Believing there is having faith. It doesn't do what you claim. It does not deny grace or love or truth or peace or justice or anything else that is good (Jesus uses the term) as the source. If it's good, it's God. Faith is good. If you want only to look at faith from an Aristotelian perspective, then how can you find fault with the rest of Aristotle's teachings? He had no problem teaching Alexander who then went out to slaughter to gain the Earth and to engage in homosexuality until he was cut off in his iniquity. Aristotle's logic didn't prevent him from seeing the errors. Jesus's logic prevents what Aristotle did.
      You used the term in the fleshly only sense. I have been speaking spiritually to you. You have used Aristotle to deny me.
      You refuse to acknowledge that Paul was fallible. Yet he said Peter was fallible. Why not stand up for Peter? Why is Paul always right in your eyes? In whom do you have your faith? Do you look at Paul honestly or do you worship him blindly?
      Just because I look at Peter and Paul as they were at the time not as Jesus, proper, doesn't mean I condemn either one. I don't condemn either or anyone. Paul went from arresting and persecuting and worse to trying to atone. That doesn't make him infallible.
      Look, he made a huge deal about the ritualistic law and how he had been given liberality concerning it. When he went to Jerusalem and James was concerned, Paul shaved his head and took part in the ritualism. Yet, Paul rebuked Peter for sort of cowering around the other Apostles, including James. Paul was human. Peter denied Jesus, but Jesus forgave him. This is all part of the lesson. There are many, many other similar examples concerning the letters attributed to Paul. I also don't say here that I don't fall to the same types of errors. That's the point. If I don't look at them, I'll miss them in myself too. I won't be able to help others to move further either.
      I'm not going to be forgiven where I don't forgive. I know that. I want the truth though, and Paul isn't the source for the best vision of that I've seen. Some of what he taught is exactly what I don't want to repeat. There's nothing wrong with my saying that. I want for this world to be the New World about which Jesus speaks. Two thousand years of the churches and we aren't even close to it. It hasn't been the focus. Stuff such as endless Aristotelian arguments (Paul was Hellenistic; it matters) over the Solas have consumed time and energies rather than bringing forth in faith. If you disagree, I'll say it over and over go your way then.
      I read your comment and my post and what I see is someone who just went glossy eyed at much of what I wrote. You rehash the same thing over and over as if I haven't said anything. I comprehended your point the first time I read your post on your blog, Chris. I know exactly what you have been saying over and over. You believe that faith is temporal and fleshly when it is not exclusive to this realm that you think of as the here and now. Faith is eternal and spiritual too, Chris. If you don't see it that way, that's you. You and I aren't one concerning this.
      Anyway, the thrust of my calling is bringing forth the Commons, something you run from into the waiting arms of endless hairsplitting where there isn't any hair in the first place. If that offends you, again, there's nothing I can do about that. If the shoe fits in your eyes, that's that.
      If you want to argue over the Solas rather than moving ahead in greater understanding, you go ahead. I'm interested in bringing forth. Love, grace, faith, and self are one for me. God gets the credit from me for all four and more that wouldn't exist for me otherwise. I don't slice them and dice them. If you want to argue over which of those eternal parts of the word came first, go ahead. If you don't want to join in the Christian Commons, don't.
      I also want directly to address your statement about Paul. There is the absolutely perfect and then there is everything else relative to it. To read what you've written, you make it sound as if I place Paul as Satan. Well, he's no more Satan than was Peter when Jesus called Peter Satan, which he did. You know it.
      You don't ever consider the points that Paul made that fall to misunderstanding just as Peter misunderstood. You don't compare and contrast Jesus and Paul. You refuse to see anywhere where Paul did not teach in exact consistency with what Jesus was imparting. Well, I do, and that doesn't make me Satan. If what I've said about Paul is evil, then what Jesus said about Peter is evil too, only it's not.
      You actually ask people what they've suffered to preach the Gospel. I don't wear my suffering on my sleeve. I'm not going to put it there in an attempt to impress you either. You haven't a clue as to what I've been through.
      I'm sure glad for the other disciples that none of them stood up to rip Jesus for correcting Peter. Paul's off limits even though he put Peter within limits. Do you see any problem here with that?
      My point about Paul was about his emphasis. You apparently think it was perfect. That's you. I don't agree. That doesn't make me Satan. It doesn't mean I'm being evil. I'm telling people to emphasize bringing forth the Commons much more than did Paul and giving all credit to God. You're avoiding it. You have avoided it from the very first reply on this website to you from me. You don't like the Commons. You're avoiding saying so. You're against it rather than for it. If you were for it, you'd have said so certainly by now.
      It isn't right of you to decide for me where I hold Paul vis-a-vis anyone else. Jesus said Peter was Satan, yet he didn't throw Peter away. It isn't for you to decide whether or not I throw Paul away rather than discuss with him his vision just as he did with Peter. You're being presumptuous.
      You're offended that I've used the term "bringing forth" repeatedly and you point to your blog, but you never engaged with me in the discussion. That's a fact, Chris.
      So I'm haughty in your eyes because I don't agree with you. Where did I say I was perfected? You deny me the rights you grant Paul.
      As for your statement that you will give no further response, and that you kindly ask me to end this, I'll leave you with the sage words of my grandfather Usher. "If you don't want to argue, shut up." Argue there is interchangeable with debate. Shut up means to hold your peace. If you want to read those words only in a harsh tone, that's you. Frankly, he was right. His words there don't offend me even when I aim them at myself.
      God bless you, Chris.
      Tom Usher