Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[mark kennedy]

Your post struck me as an intellectually dishonest attempt to skirt the force of my objections, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your sincerity. So here goes.

I don't know what you think or where this conversation will go but I can assure you, I will never mislead you intellectually, I have no reason to. While we may not disagree I haven't told you anything I'm not being candid about and I resent the insinuation of dishonesty. Do it again and your going on my ignore list.

This conclusion logically contradicts the facts. I can cause your mind to fail a math test by spiking your food with drugs. You're claiming it's outside of space and time - and yet, in point of fact, it's impacted by ordinary matter in the here and now?

This kind of a parallel reality is in keeping with the nature of God for example. God at the same time is utterly independent of his creation (aseity) and nothing is beyond his understanding or reach. The human spirit while not composed of elements in the periodic table of elements that doesn't mean it doesn't have form or substance, it's just something other then what we would consider a material form.

If Paul used the term 'flesh' to describe an IMMATERIAL SINFUL NATURE, then he was perhaps the most stupid writer who ever lived. Period.

That just sounds like hyperbole to me.

[quoteIn fact Paul's language is so decisively somatic in character that a noted Christian preacher and writer (I think it was John Maccarthur as I seem to recall) actually drew the conclusion that inanimate matter (the human body in the purely molecular sense) IS the sinful nature.[/quote]

The full definition of sin isn't limited to the sins of the flesh, the sinful nature proceeds from the heart and includes being drawn away by temptations that are often but not always based on physical appetites.

It potentially changes our whole view of God. It's all part of a larger theological system introduced on this thread. And it has some interesting repurcussions for sanctification, as I expect to discuss later.
You don't want me to impose doctrine on Scripture? Sort of like how traditionalists have imposed immaterialism onto the pages of the Bible despite how it flies in the face of all the biblical data? That kind of thing?

I don't know what you mean by immaterialism but I know what materialism and it does not represent the whole of reality. This whole thing just sounds like your working from a materialistic frame of reference.

 

[rjs330]

I don't know what you think or where this conversation will go but I can assure you, I will never mislead you intellectually, I have no reason to. While we may not disagree I haven't told you anything I'm not being candid about and I resent the insinuation of dishonesty. Do it again and your going on my ignore list.



This kind of a parallel reality is in keeping with the nature of God for example. God at the same time is utterly independent of his creation (aseity) and nothing is beyond his understanding or reach. The human spirit while not composed of elements in the periodic table of elements that doesn't mean it doesn't have form or substance, it's just something other then what we would consider a material form.



That just sounds like hyperbole to me.

[quoteIn fact Paul's language is so decisively somatic in character that a noted Christian preacher and writer (I think it was John Maccarthur as I seem to recall) actually drew the conclusion that inanimate matter (the human body in the purely molecular sense) IS the sinful nature.

The full definition of sin isn't limited to the sins of the flesh, the sinful nature proceeds from the heart and includes being drawn away by temptations that are often but not always based on physical appetites.



I don't know what you mean by immaterialism but I know what materialism and it does not represent the whole of reality. This whole thing just sounds like your working from a materialistic frame of reference.[/QUOTE]

One thing JAL misses in all this flesh stuff is that the writers of scripture mention the heart and emotions as being sinful not just the flesh. This includes Paul. This whole notion of JALs is so foreign to what the totality of scripture teaches. Jesus said what comes out of man defiles him. He referred to thoughts and emotions as sinful. Paul does too. Sin starts withing the heart the immaterial and is often brought forth by the body. JAL definitely does not know his Bible very well. His exigetical ability lacks comprehensive study of scripture. It's really only philisophical in nature and not nearly as learned as he would like for us to believe.

 

[JAL]

I don't know what you think or where this conversation will go but I can assure you, I will never mislead you intellectually, I have no reason to. While we may not disagree I haven't told you anything I'm not being candid about and I resent the insinuation of dishonesty. Do it again and your going on my ignore list.

Fine. Cheers.

This kind of a parallel reality is in keeping with the nature of God for example. God at the same time is utterly independent of his creation (aseity) and nothing is beyond his understanding or reach. The human spirit while not composed of elements in the periodic table of elements that doesn't mean it doesn't have form or substance, it's just something other then what we would consider a material form.

Yes. Tangible form or substance is the only DEFINITION of mind capable of explaining how mind and body interact. You're not getting around that fact no matter how many kinds of fancy, technical, scholastic, traditional (etc.) phrases you spew out such as 'aseity', 'independent of creation', 'form' - makes no difference.

Dress it up any way you want. It's a material mind. Period.

That just sounds like hyperbole to me.

Not really an argument. Fact is, no one uses 'flesh' to describe immaterial realities - and it also flies in the face of the remaining 140 or so usages of 'sarx' in the Greek NT. THAT'S an argument.

The full definition of sin isn't limited to the sins of the flesh, the sinful nature proceeds from the heart and includes being drawn away by temptations that are often but not always based on physical appetites.

This statement isn't making any sense. The ONLY possible kind of sin is 'sins of the heart' (or 'mind' if you prefer that term) - just so happens that that this mind is material (and fleshy-like) wherefore Paul rightly calls it 'the flesh'.

I don't know what you mean by immaterialism but I know what materialism and it does not represent the whole of reality. This whole thing just sounds like your working from a materialistic frame of reference.

I think we're talking past each other. Historically 'materialism' connotes a reductionist point of view - reality consists of innately dead matter which somehow spawns consciousness. I don't believe such is possible. You start with dead atoms and you end up with - you guessed it - dead atoms. Dead atoms will never have powers such as intuition, creative thinking, self-consciousness, time-consciousness, etc. Rather I only believe in INNATELY conscious matter, matter which inherently possesses all the characteristics and capabilities traditionally associated with mind, including free will.

So when you say that materialism 'doesn't represent the whole of reality' then what YOU have in mind by the term materialism is clearly not what I have in mind. (You can fault me for using the term 'materialism' but I don't have a better term for tangible minds at the moment).

Merleau Ponty dedicated much of his life to the study of clinical psychology, phenomenology, and philosophy. He wrote an important book called The Phenomenology of Perception in which he argued that clinical research demonstrates that the body itself has powers of intuition. For example he argues that the pianist who can quickly switch to a different-sized piano is demonstrating 'knowledge in the hands' - an intuition that cannot be explained in mechanical terms.

The problem with Platonic indoctrination over the last 2,000 years is it leads to a sort of close-minded tunnel vision that assumes that our special mental faculties MUST inhere in immaterial substance.

In one sense all sides of the debate can perhaps agree that conscious experience is not a material substance - nor is it an immaterial substance - it is rather an EXPERIENCE had BY a substance (a person). The QUESTION is whether the person having that experience is material or immaterial. The facts of reality, as I demonstrated in my last post to you, point to materialism.

 

[JAL]

One thing JAL misses in all this flesh stuff is that the writers of scripture mention the heart and emotions as being sinful not just the flesh. This includes Paul.

False dichotomy. The flesh (the material mind intermixed with the material body) IS the heart and the emotions.

Jesus said what comes out of man defiles him. He referred to thoughts and emotions as sinful. Paul does too. Sin starts withing the heart the immaterial and is often brought forth by the body.

You were pretty much correct until you reached the word 'immaterial'.

JAL definitely does not know his Bible very well. His exigetical ability lacks comprehensive study of scripture. It's really only philisophical in nature and not nearly as learned as he would like for us to believe.

As stated before, my conclusions don't require any brains or learning. It's all about common sense. When a mainstream theologian tells me that '2+1=2' (Millard J. Erickson's summary of the hypostatic union), even an adolescent can figure out that something's wrong with this picture.

 

[JAL]

I don't know what you think or where this conversation will go but I can assure you, I will never mislead you intellectually, I have no reason to. While we may not disagree I haven't told you anything I'm not being candid about and I resent the insinuation of dishonesty. Do it again and your going on my ignore list.

One more comment on this. My actual words were "Your post struck me as an intellectually dishonest attempt to skirt the force of my objections." Just to clarify, I wasn't accusing you of attempting to 'mislead [me] intellectually'.

It was an accusation of a shallow, evasive response where a writer senses he's not really meeting the force of an objection but writes with an air of full rebuttal. I've seen it a lot on these forums, and I PERSONALLY consider it one variety of intellectual dishonesty. Others might regard it as acceptable debating tactics.

You reacted so vehemently - as though I were the only to ever accuse you of an evasive response, of failing to meet the full force of the objections head-on. Is that the case?

I mean, looking at your posts, there were SEVERAL arguments and verses adduced by me that you didn't seem to address. And yet you seemed to have been CLAIMING to have discredited my position! Put the shoe on the other foot. If you felt someone had done that to YOU, what would YOU conclude? You wouldn't regard him as evasive?

 

[JAL]

What would concern me about the distinction between material and immaterial? I really don't get such a long trip to a less then substantive point.

It's actually a fairly significant point (to put it mildly) , as I will now proceed to demonstrate.

Immaterialism fosters the lie that intimacy with God is primarily non-physical. I'm here to notify EVERYONE that if they don't physically see God face to face on a regular basis, they are spiritually immature (including myself). To demonstrate this fact, I will provide a few arguments based on both Scripture and common sense.

At John 5:37, "You have never heard His voice nor seen His shape."

"With [Moses] I speak face to face...he sees the form of the Lord" (Num 12). According to that passage, Moses is privileged to see God in ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MATURITY. Since God is no respecter of persons, you would have the same privileges if you were as mature as Moses, wherefore Paul, for example, could attest to precisely the same kinds of "visions and revelations from the Lord...surpassingly great revelations" (2Cor 12:1, 7).

Scripture beckons us to 'fellowship' with the Lord (1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6). What is fellowship? What is intimacy? Is it an immaterial spiritual nothingness? Picture the following conversation between two men.

“Guess what? I have recently been enjoying incredibly intimate fellowship with a woman. Indeed we are in love.” “Oh really? Tell me all about it! Is she beautiful?” “Well, I’ve never actually SEEN her.” “No? Ok. In that case, I’ll bet she has a wonderfully feminine voice.” “Well, honestly, I’ve never actually HEARD her voice.” “No? How exactly do you know her, then?” “Well, actually she died 2,000 years ago nailed to a cross, but she left behind a book of laws and rules for me to obey.” “Wait a minute, I thought you referred earlier to enjoying intimate fellowship with her!” “Yes I did. It’s a spiritual relationship. It's all immaterial.”

Sorry to burst that guy’s bubble, but what he denoted as a “spiritual relationship” is NOT fellowship. "Fellowship" (1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6) between two parties can only be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear). The broader the spectrum of sensations, the more intimate the fellowship. Since God CREATED us for fellowship, it MUST be His desire to maximize it by availing of the full spectrum of sensations (even tasting Him as the disciples did at the Last Supper). In fact, if He OMITTED any of the sensations, it would cultivate conceptual idolatry because the mind would tend to misconceive God in that domain (more on this later). Here too, materialism fits the bill PERFECTLY.

Abraham was called the friend of God. 'Friend' connotes:
(1) Intimacy.
(2) Fellowship.
So what does that look like? What does it mean to be friends? You already know, because YOU have friends. In Gen 18, Abraham invited God over to his house for supper, fired Him up a beef steak, baked Him up a loaf bread, and had some friendly dinner-conversation over the meal. As Louis Berkhoff noted in his Systematic Theology, God appeared to Abraham again, and again, and again. Paul designated Abraham as a paradigm of the Christian life for all us to emulate.

"The Lord spoke with Moses faced to face, as a man speaks with his FRIEND" - did you catch that? Does anyone here really need a refresher on what 'friend' means?

To summarize, immaterialism is antithetical to intimacy, it is therefore a concept at enmity with God. Pretty 'substantive point', Mark (to use your phrase).

I'll post Part 2 of this argument when I get a chance. It also deserves Part 3 if time permits.

 

[JAL]

What would concern me about the distinction between material and immaterial? I really don't get such a long trip to a less then substantive point.

After Jacob physically wrestled with God, he called that place Peniel, "because I saw God face to face." While this event doesn't strike me as immaterial, it certainly does bear a striking resemblance to two INTIMATE FRIENDS playing around for the fun of it. Admittedly God got pretty rough at the end, dislocating his hip, probably because He anticipated the insidious epidemic of immaterialism and therefore wanted to eradicate any doubt as to His own physicality.

God wants to bombard your body with all kinds of sensations, and typically the effluences from Him (such as divine Light particles) penetrate deep into your body as to further administer massage, caress, and tickles of joy, even as an earthly father covers a babe with gentle kisses from head to toe - that is PRECISELY what the Father wants to do for us. Such revelations of his love, admittedly minute at first, largely define the new birth, and escalate with sanctification.

Physical penetration, then, heightens intimacy - and Scripture makes no bones about it. Far from being embarrassed about it, Scripture shouts it from the mountaintops, by furnishing us a very explicit analogy - human sexuality. The following words, written by Paul, are nothing short of astonishing:

"The two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (Eph 5:32-33).

Did you catch that? The parallel is clear:
(1) Man and woman join physically in sexual penetration as to form one FLESH.
(2) Christ joins physically with His church as to become ONE FLESH with her. He penetrates her in ways I just described above.
Per John, God places His seed in us ('sperma' in the Greek).

This is NOT to say that God engages in human sexuality with us. When a father kisses a babe from head to toe, it is NOT sexual. But the point is that Scripture isn't embarrassed about physical penetration. Even the immaterialist will admit that the human BODY is the temple of the Holy 'Spirit', penetrated by Him for intimacy. However, immaterialism fails of Paul's analogy because such two couldn't possibly join to form one FLESH. Here too, materialism is exegetically superior.

Aw shucks. I meant to be short on this one, and yet I really haven't started my Part 2 arguments yet. Next post.

 

[rjs330]

Fine. Cheers.
Yes. Tangible form or substance is the only DEFINITION of mind capable of explaining how mind and body interact. You're not getting around that fact no matter how many kinds of fancy, technical, scholastic, traditional (etc.) phrases you spew out such as 'aseity', 'independent of creation', 'form' - makes no difference.

Dress it up any way you want. It's a material mind. Period.

Not really an argument. Fact is, no one uses 'flesh' to describe immaterial realities - and it also flies in the face of the remaining 140 or so usages of 'sarx' in the Greek NT. THAT'S an argument.


This statement isn't making any sense. The ONLY possible kind of sin is 'sins of the heart' (or 'mind' if you prefer that term) - just so happens that that this mind is material (and fleshy-like) wherefore Paul rightly calls it 'the flesh'.

I think we're talking past each other. Historically 'materialism' connotes a reductionist point of view - reality consists of innately dead matter which somehow spawns consciousness. I don't believe such is possible. You start with dead atoms and you end up with - you guessed it - dead atoms. Dead atoms will never have powers such as intuition, creative thinking, self-consciousness, time-consciousness, etc. Rather I only believe in INNATELY conscious matter, matter which inherently possesses all the characteristics and capabilities traditionally associated with mind, including free will.

So when you say that materialism 'doesn't represent the whole of reality' then what YOU have in mind by the term materialism is clearly not what I have in mind. (You can fault me for using the term 'materialism' but I don't have a better term for tangible minds at the moment).

Merleau Ponty dedicated much of his life to the study of clinical psychology, phenomenology, and philosophy. He wrote an important book called The Phenomenology of Perception in which he argued that clinical research demonstrates that the body itself has powers of intuition. For example he argues that the pianist who can quickly switch to a different-sized piano is demonstrating 'knowledge in the hands' - an intuition that cannot be explained in mechanical terms.

The problem with Platonic indoctrination over the last 2,000 years is it leads to a sort of close-minded tunnel vision that assumes that our special mental faculties MUST inhere in immaterial substance.

In one sense all sides of the debate can perhaps agree that conscious experience is not a material substance - nor is it an immaterial substance - it is rather an EXPERIENCE had BY a substance (a person). The QUESTION is whether the person having that experience is material or immaterial. The facts of reality, as I demonstrated in my last post to you, point to materialism.

The problem is that you equate man with God and equate everything as material. At least thats the way it sounds. You may disregard what I amaabout to say if I am misunderstanding you.

Jesus made a couple statements that counter the idea all is material. So does other scriptures. Jesus said we must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus said we should love the lord with all.our heart soul mind and strength. In Hebrews the writer say the word is sharp dividing the soul and spirit. Jesus said God is a spirit. John said the word became flesh.
Human logic doesn't grasp that. You are leaning on human logic. You disagree with what God says. You are leaning on your own understanding. Yes our bodies do exist and we will always have a body. But there is another part of us that the Bible calls spirit and soul. That is NOT flesh. Without the spirit and soul the body is dead. The flesh is only part of us. It's the totality of what the scripture tells us that matters. You are actually leaning on your fleshly understanding. Which is limited to what the fleshly mind can comprehend. That's why we need to conform our thoughts and understanding to what God says even if we can't fully wrap our minds around it. That's why scripture tells us to lean not on our understanding, but in ALL our ways which includes our thoughts, acknowledge HIM. Acknowledge that our thoughts and ways are not his.

 

[JAL]

The problem is that you equate man with God and equate everything as material. At least thats the way it sounds. You may disregard what I amaabout to say if I am misunderstanding you.

Jesus made a couple statements that counter the idea all is material. So does other scriptures. Jesus said we must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus said we should love the lord with all.our heart soul mind and strength. In Hebrews the writer say the word is sharp dividing the soul and spirit. Jesus said God is a spirit. John said the word became flesh.
Human logic doesn't grasp that. You are leaning on human logic. You disagree with what God says. You are leaning on your own understanding. Yes our bodies do exist and we will always have a body. But there is another part of us that the Bible calls spirit and soul. That is NOT flesh. Without the spirit and soul the body is dead. The flesh is only part of us. It's the totality of what the scripture tells us that matters. You are actually leaning on your fleshly understanding. Which is limited to what the fleshly mind can comprehend. That's why we need to conform our thoughts and understanding to what God says even if we can't fully wrap our minds around it. That's why scripture tells us to lean not on our understanding, but in ALL our ways which includes our thoughts, acknowledge HIM. Acknowledge that our thoughts and ways are not his.

Feel free to ask me questions if you want more clarification of my views.

The problem is that you equate man with God and equate everything as material. At least that the way it sounds.

Each particle of matter has its own free will/volition, in my view. Of its own free will, the huge mass of matter known as Yahweh labored at least 13 billion years, in my opinion, to become holy, before forming us out of a SEPARATE chunk of matter (Yahweh decided to have kids). God is therefore SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from man, and merits praise for His suffering/hard work. You'll recall that even Calvary has no merit without suffering.

I have my own free will and my own set of thoughts. Given that I don't know what God is thinking, I'm pretty sure that I'm not God. And this is to be expected, because we are two separate pieces of matter. Is it theoretically possible for God to physically merge me into His mind? I don't know, perhaps so, but I still wouldn't merit worship, not having labored for 13 billion years like He did. So it's a bit of a moot point. And certainly, since He created me for FELLOWSHIP, He would prefer for the two of us to REMAIN perfectly distinct from each other, as we are now.

I know it's hard to consider a new point of view. You're asking, as HatGuy did, 'Well if everything is matter, isn't it all one person?" But this question is even more difficult for immaterialists. Immaterialism doesn't allow separate quantities/quantities. Immaterial substance is defined, in their view, has having no size or shape, and thus no location in space (yes, no one can understand this, it's all gibberish). If immaterialism were literally true, then, reality would have no way to SEPARATE and DISTINGUISH two individuals (or to put it technically, there would be no individuation). Thus we may SAFELY conclude:
immaterialism = pantheism (man and God are all one person).

Immaterialists will deny this conclusion of course, but it is clear implication of their system. It's one of several logical contradictions that I've been exposing.

Jesus made a couple statements that counter the idea all is material. So does other scriptures. Jesus said we must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus said we should love the lord with all.our heart soul mind and strength. In Hebrews the writer say the word is sharp dividing the soul and spirit. Jesus said God is a spirit. John said the word became flesh.

Consider a jury that listened to the defense but never heard the prosecution, or vice versa. Is that fair? It's not enough to consider ONE point of view. In order to make an informed decision, you need to hear both sides.

The problem is that many people's minds are so saturated with 2,000 years of immaterialism that they are perhaps unable to even COMPREHEND another side, they find it impossible to think in those terms. But here's why you should try.

You have a Pentecostal insgnia that marks you an evangelical/Protestant. Therefore you are probably grateful that the Protestant Reformation, in 1500 A.D, globally published a LOT of evangelical teachings that seem to have largely died out for up to 1500 years. Reform can be very GOOD thing.

But if mistakes can lie unfixed for 1500 years - what about the last 500 years? Do you really want to assume that the Reformation fixed EVERYTHING? That's a dangerous assumption. Just pretend you're on a jury and ask yourself this question, 'I've heard the defense. Do I love God enough to hear out the prosecution at least ONCE? If He possibly labored 13 billion years to help ME, am I grateful enough to entertain a mere CHANGE OF MIND to please HIM?' Sadly, I think a lot of Christians are unwilling to do so. Most Christians are perfectly happy to hear sermon after sermon (the same stuff repeated for 2,000) years, Sunday after Sunday, but some of them are unwilling to hear out even ONE sermon that argues a different point of view, for the sake of reforms potentially pleasing to God.

Jesus made a couple statements that counter the idea all is material. So does other scriptures. Jesus said we must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus said we should love the lord with all.our heart soul mind and strength. In Hebrews the writer say the word is sharp dividing the soul and spirit. Jesus said God is a spirit. John said the word became flesh.

Jesus didn't say that we worship in 'spirit' (that's an English word). He said we worship in Pneuma. The Greek word Pneuma NORMALLY means wind/breath (all scholars agree on this fact). Immaterialists CLAIM that we should, in a few passages, read it as 'immaterial spirit'. But I've been debating that point both on biblical and common-sense grounds.

If your soul is immaterial, it logically contradicts daily experience, because free will would fail. An immaterial soul that CHOOSES to do good or evil would be too intangible to PUSH or PULL the body in that direction. This is called the mind-body problem - and immaterialists have no solution to it.


Out of desperation, apparently, Millard J. Erickson tries to take a middle stance on the issue (it boils down to gibberish, but at least it acknwolwedges the need to solve the mind-body problem). Erickson is one of the most influential evangelical theologians of the past century, if you didn't know. Erickson's position is:
(1) The soul is immaterial when God creates it.
(2) When He places it in the human body, it suddenly becomes material !!!!

Human logic doesn't grasp that. You are leaning on human logic.

It's very dangerous to accept a 'doctrine' that you cannot grasp. You shouldn't accept gibberish. You should hope to find doctrines that you CAN grasp - and then decide which ones are true based on your research into God's Word.

You disagree with what God says. You are leaning on your own understanding. Yes our bodies do exist and we will always have a body. But there is another part of us that the Bible calls spirit and soul. That is NOT flesh.

But Paul does call it flesh.

Yes we are two parts. Our natural body consists of ordinary atoms. This is what I call unawakened matter, it is dead and will always be dead. It's not what sins. However, God also placed a soul in that body. It's physical, because He breathed it into Adam's nostrils (Gen 2:7). Note the aeorodynamics. Physical breath/wind cannot physically PUSH an immaterial soul into Adom's nostrils. That wouldn't work. It had to be a material soul. That's what sins, and because it is MERGED with our (dead-matter) body, it presumably has a somewhat fleshy-texture. Hence Paul calls the sinful mind 'the flesh' - you can also call it heart, soul, mind, spirit - any of these terms are suitable as long as you understand it to be a material mind (i.e. TANGIBLE mind, don't assume it has PRECISELY the same kind of atom-based structure as ordinary dead matter). That's my argument.

 

[JAL]

Which is limited to what the fleshly mind can comprehend. That's why we need to conform our thoughts and understanding to what God says even if we can't fully wrap our minds around it. That's why scripture tells us to lean not on our understanding, but in ALL our ways which includes our thoughts, acknowledge HIM. Acknowledge that our thoughts and ways are not his.

But as I already showed, all theologians extrapolate. There's no getting around it, if we want to form some resolute opinions on the major doctrinal issues. You seem to want to:
(1) accept the mainstream extrapolations on blind faith
(2) while chastising me for investigating the issues.
Getting back to your statement, what does it mean to lean not into your understanding? As I've argued probably twice on this thread, our ultimate authority is conscience because, for one thing, it could be God convicting/convincing you of a belief. You SHOULD follow your conscience above logic, exegesis, counsel, etc. This is what it means to lean not on your own understanding.

You should ALSO follow your conscience when it warns you that your current doctrine might need reexamination of the Scriptures and reform. That's the kind of opportunity you're getting on this thread.

- Switching gears, here's a few reminders to ease your concerns about materialism. This is stuff I already wrote, but I'm not sure if you read all those posts.

Dallas Theological Seminary was one of the most respected evangelical seminaries of the past century. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded it and served as president for several decades. He argued that angels are material beings because the term spirit "in both Hebrew and Greek is primarily a material term, indicating wind, air, or breath" (Lewis Sperry
Chafer, “Angelology Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 401, Galaxie Software).

In that article he named several church fathers who viewed angels as physical: Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Caesarius. Tertullian (200 AD) in particular was important because:
(1) He invented the word Trinity.
(2) He insisted that EVERYTHING including God is physical.
(3) In debates he fought HARD against the rising tide of immaterialists,reminding them that it was hollow and deceptive philosophy born of Plato, not of Scripture.
I've already mentioned the entire Orthodox church, which admits to the rampant materialism of Scripture, referring to it as the Energies of God (albeit claiming that there is still an immaterial 'Spirit' behind the scenes).
- Augustine was pretty clear that all the biblical apparitions of God were physical substance. “Whoever saw that dove [descend upon Christ] and that fire [at Pentecost],” he wrote, “saw them with their eyes….in corporeal forms”. Augustine’s additional examples of “corporeal forms [were] the fire of the bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount.”

"The temple was filled with smoke, from the glory of God and his power" (Rev 15:8).

So please don't have any doubts that there's both a scriptural and patristic basis for materialism. I mean, God wrote the Bible and put lots of material stuff in it, so how disappointed can He justifiably claim to be if you and I, as fallible human beings, were to make an error on this issue?

John said the word became flesh. Human logic doesn't grasp that.

Yes it does. I think I discussed John 1:14 already. I'll do it again.

When you eat a peanut-butter sandwich, your digestive system converts it to flesh. Thus material objects can EASILY become flesh. Therefore, the material divine Word became flesh. No problem there. But what if someone told you that he was trying to eat more immmaterial substance as to grow muscle? Pretty insane, right? It's just not reasonable to assert that an immaterial substance becomes flesh. It's a contradiction in terms.

 

[JAL]

rjs330, I meant to give you one more reassurance about materialism but just forgot.

You say that thinking is an immaterial process. But surely you don't believe that, right? Seems to me that the only way to draw that conclusion is to pretend that the human brain does not exist.

After all, if an accident should damage your brain, you won't be able to think clearly. Please don't lose sight of this fact.

 

[JAL]

What would concern me about the distinction between material and immaterial? I really don't get such a long trip to a less then substantive point.

I had promised a Part 2. Here we go.

Paul prayed that "the glorious Father give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation...that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened" (Eph 1:17-18).

Interestingly Paul never dooms his readers to less revelation than his own. On the contrary, he asks God to grant the churches his own self-same experience.

What is revelation? What is enlightenment? Let's suppose you're reading Scripture. You see the word 'angel' and try to comprehend it. You PICTURE it. You comprehend it by mental vision.

The trouble, of course, is that self-generated mental visions are typically inaccurate. What you need is a revelatory vision. YOU NEED TO SEE ANGELS.

And from a subjective point, a VISION of an angel is just like physically seeing an angel (assuming the vision is indeed accurate, that is, true to life in all aspects).

The upshot is that, even if immaterialism were correct, it would STILL be the exact wrong ideology to PRACTICE because, from a phenomenal standpoint (i.e. the standpoint of EXPERIENCE), revelation is always a physical experience, even as in dreams for example, everything is EXPERIENCED as physical regardless of whether it really IS physical. (Incidentally, though, a dream is the same kind of physical brain activity caused by external physical sensations except it's internally self-propelled).

Ok, so much for stumbling upon the word 'angel' in Scripture. Moving on. What now of stumbling upon the word 'God' in Scripture? Same dynamics, but even far more pressing, because the mind can only worship what the mind's eye sees. It is impossible for the feeble human mind to PROPERLY conceive an ineffably holy God. Therefore the mind is doomed to conceptual idolatry - the worship of idols - until it receives by revelation ACCURATE, face-to-face visions of God. Here again, one CANNOT be spiritually mature if he doesn't see God face to face. It's a logical impossibility. Naturally, then, the discussion of spiritual maturity at 1Cor 13:8-12 climaxes with, "For now [in our immaturity] we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then [IN MATURITY] face to face". Perhaps I'll discuss this passage later.

This is not to suggest that a newborn Christian worships 100% idols. Such would not be conversion, because it would mean he never met the Lord at all. It's a question of degrees. The immature believer worships a vision that is MOSTLY an idol, but not entirely so. The evangelical scholar Gordon Fee - perhaps the most learned Pauline scholar of the past century - was adamant that 2Cor 3:12-18 is APODICTIC PROOF that the Christian sees the Lord LITERALLY. As I seem to recall he refused to even call it a 'vision' of the Lord. Rather, in his view of the passage, the Christian must be defined as one who sees God. Period.

After all, what is consciousness? Loudness. To be conscious is to be conscious of one sensation or another, perceived either very distinctly (loud and clear) or somewhat indistinctly. Should the sensations subside, we call it a lapse into unconscousness. All conscious thought is thus a stream of sensations more or less loud and clear. As proof, even the most unclear, nebulous, abstract sentence - a sentence which you are still strugging to comprehend - can be mentally SUNG in your mind to your favorite tune, which proves you HEAR it. And then, in order to COMPREHEND it, you form mental visions as discussed above. The mind always sees and hears, which are physical sensations, at least from a PHENOMENAL standpoint.

On a sidenote, even the sensations of joy, love, and peace must all be felt distinctly (loudly and clearly) to function as beneficial revelations from God. But I digress.

A couple of verses should drive home the foregoing points. Elisha prayed for his manservant who couldn’t see the armies of God surrounding them, “Open his eyes, that he may see” (2Kings 6:17, KJV). Notice his prayer did not take the form, “Grant this man a special gift.” He didn’t NEED any special gifting, something out of the ordinary. All he needed was the NORM, that is, open eyes. EVERY believer is supposed to have open eyes. NONE of us are supposed to be blind. If you don't physically see angels face to face, friends one and all, there is something dreadfully WRONG with you. You are spiritually immature, you are spiritually BLIND. (Of course I myself am in the same plight). Note that prayer was the only possible solution. Although reading the Bible is valuable, prayer is the only strategy guaranteed to confer direct revelations from heaven.

One last verse. Isaiah went up to the temple and saw God face to face. What was the IMMEDIATE IMPACT of this vision upon his assessment of the world? Having seen God face to face, he suddenly realized that EVERYONE AROUND HIM WAS SPIRITUALLY BLIND. John cites the passage from Isaiah, and his rendering of it is slightly unique because he is bent on emphasizing the primacy of visions (I had planned to briefly cover this aspect of John in Part 3 - we'll see).
"“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them. Isaiah SAID THIS BECAUSE HE SAW JESUS' GLORY and spoke about him" (John 12:40-41).

Did you catch John's emphasis? He emphasized that Isaiah, having seen God face to face, classified the world at large as spiritually blind.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Feel free to ask me questions if you want more clarification of my views.
Each particle of matter has its own free will/volition, in my view. Of its own free will, the huge mass of matter known as Yahweh labored at least 13 billion years, in my opinion, to become holy, before forming us out of a SEPARATE chunk of matter (Yahweh decided to have kids). God is therefore SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from man, and merits praise for His suffering/hard work. You'll recall that even Calvary has no merit without suffering.

Thought I would check back in on this thread for some reason. Some questions:

1. The “totality” as you call it, is matter from which God arose, correct? Where did the totality come from? You suggest God had to rise from matter, because the notion that God supersedes matter is “gibberish” (your favorite word), but you force no such mandate on the “totality”. Where did it come from?
2. You claim each particle has its own free will. You are conferring sentience to every particle in the universe. This defies science and scripture. This would be a universe with absolutely no order and laws would not apply. I am sure that my kitchen table would be interested to know it doesn’t have to be the table anymore, and yet, it still is. What is forcing particle’s to act against their own free will?
3. Where did the “separate” matter God used to make man come from? God arises from all matter, but finds separate matter from which to make man?
4. Other than God’s vast lifespan, what truly makes Him any different from man?

You have made some extraordinary claims here, and they are all philosophically based. This is not enough. If materialism is your guiding foundation, you have actually crossed into the realm of the measurable and observable. This realm is observed, tested and proven only with science. You must now prove your theology scripturally AND scientifically. Please provide not only scripture, but also scientific answers to the 4 questions above. To fail to provide these answers would render your view “gibberish”.

 

[rjs330]

Feel free to ask me questions if you want more clarification of my views.
Each particle of matter has its own free will/volition, in my view. Of its own free will, the huge mass of matter known as Yahweh labored at least 13 billion years, in my opinion, to become holy, before forming us out of a SEPARATE chunk of matter (Yahweh decided to have kids). God is therefore SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from man, and merits praise for His suffering/hard work. You'll recall that even Calvary has no merit without suffering.

I have my own free will and my own set of thoughts. Given that I don't know what God is thinking, I'm pretty sure that I'm not God. And this is to be expected, because we are two separate pieces of matter. Is it theoretically possible for God to physically merge me into His mind? I don't know, perhaps so, but I still wouldn't merit worship, not having labored for 13 billion years like He did. So it's a bit of a moot point. And certainly, since He created me for FELLOWSHIP, He would prefer for the two of us to REMAIN perfectly distinct from each other, as we are now.

I know it's hard to consider a new point of view. You're asking, as HatGuy did, 'Well if everything is matter, isn't it all one person?" But this question is even more difficult for immaterialists. Immaterialism doesn't allow separate quantities/quantities. Immaterial substance is defined, in their view, has having no size or shape, and thus no location in space (yes, no one can understand this, it's all gibberish). If immaterialism were literally true, then, reality would have no way to SEPARATE and DISTINGUISH two individuals (or to put it technically, there would be no individuation). Thus we may SAFELY conclude:
immaterialism = pantheism (man and God are all one person).

Immaterialists will deny this conclusion of course, but it is clear implication of their system. It's one of several logical contradictions that I've been exposing.

Consider a jury that listened to the defense but never heard the prosecution, or vice versa. Is that fair? It's not enough to consider ONE point of view. In order to make an informed decision, you need to hear both sides.

The problem is that many people's minds are so saturated with 2,000 years of immaterialism that they are perhaps unable to even COMPREHEND another side, they find it impossible to think in those terms. But here's why you should try.

You have a Pentecostal insgnia that marks you an evangelical/Protestant. Therefore you are probably grateful that the Protestant Reformation, in 1500 A.D, globally published a LOT of evangelical teachings that seem to have largely died out for up to 1500 years. Reform can be very GOOD thing.

But if mistakes can lie unfixed for 1500 years - what about the last 500 years? Do you really want to assume that the Reformation fixed EVERYTHING? That's a dangerous assumption. Just pretend you're on a jury and ask yourself this question, 'I've heard the defense. Do I love God enough to hear out the prosecution at least ONCE? If He possibly labored 13 billion years to help ME, am I grateful enough to entertain a mere CHANGE OF MIND to please HIM?' Sadly, I think a lot of Christians are unwilling to do so. Most Christians are perfectly happy to hear sermon after sermon (the same stuff repeated for 2,000) years, Sunday after Sunday, but some of them are unwilling to hear out even ONE sermon that argues a different point of view, for the sake of reforms potentially pleasing to God.



Jesus didn't say that we worship in 'spirit' (that's an English word). He said we worship in Pneuma. The Greek word Pneuma NORMALLY means wind/breath (all scholars agree on this fact). Immaterialists CLAIM that we should, in a few passages, read it as 'immaterial spirit'. But I've been debating that point both on biblical and common-sense grounds.

If your soul is immaterial, it logically contradicts daily experience, because free will would fail. An immaterial soul that CHOOSES to do good or evil would be too intangible to PUSH or PULL the body in that direction. This is called the mind-body problem - and immaterialists have no solution to it.


Out of desperation, apparently, Millard J. Erickson tries to take a middle stance on the issue (it boils down to gibberish, but at least it acknwolwedges the need to solve the mind-body problem). Erickson is one of the most influential evangelical theologians of the past century, if you didn't know. Erickson's position is:
(1) The soul is immaterial when God creates it.
(2) When He places it in the human body, it suddenly becomes material !!!!


It's very dangerous to accept a 'doctrine' that you cannot grasp. You shouldn't accept gibberish. You should hope to find doctrines that you CAN grasp - and then decide which ones are true based on your research into God's Word.

But Paul does call it flesh.

Yes we are two parts. Our natural body consists of ordinary atoms. This is what I call unawakened matter, it is dead and will always be dead. It's not what sins. However, God also placed a soul in that body. It's physical, because He breathed it into Adam's nostrils (Gen 2:7). Note the aeorodynamics. Physical breath/wind cannot physically PUSH an immaterial soul into Adom's nostrils. That wouldn't work. It had to be a material soul. That's what sins, and because it is MERGED with our (dead-matter) body, it presumably has a somewhat fleshy-texture. Hence Paul calls the sinful mind 'the flesh' - you can also call it heart, soul, mind, spirit - any of these terms are suitable as long as you understand it to be a material mind (i.e. TANGIBLE mind, don't assume it has PRECISELY the same kind of atom-based structure as ordinary dead matter). That's my argument.

You have no scriptures again to defend your position. Where is the scripture to declair God became holy? Where is your scripture to show that you can even pull that idea from?

And immaterialism absolutely does not indicate pantheism. That's just silly. I am a student of Greek and understand it very well. So I understand that the Greek word means breath or wind. And you convienently left out the part of John where Jesus said God is a spirit. What you stuggle with is the idea that a spirit does not mean some sort of nebulous gas or some such. Jesus refers to God's shape, John 5:37. We know that a spirit can manifest in bodily form. Matt 3:16. See Phil. 2:6. God is not limited like you are.
He IS a spirit . He has immensity. 1 Kings 8:27. He can be seen at times Ex 24:9. And yet no man has seen him and lived. JOHN 1:18. So, to declair that immaterialism of God is only defined as some nebulous force or whatever is not to understand what immaterialism actually means from a BIBLICAL standpoint.

You make a huge mistake in thinking the immaterial souls pushes or pulls the body. The immaterial soul make the decision and the body does what the heart wishes. The body has no will of it's own. The will belongs to the heart. The body is tye vessel that carries out the will of the heart. It's not like the body has it's its own separate will, and battles against the will of the heart.

And Paul also calls it spirit. And if you look at context of scripture it's clear that he understands both.

I don't think I am going to continue with this conversation. It seems a waste of time and energy. You have decided to reject the scriptural teaching of the nature if God. I don't really care honestly about your argument of the body, soul and spirit of man. It's quite irrelevant.

What is relevant though is God. It's clear you reject the biblical teaching of the nature of God. You teach a false doctrine and we are to reject that kind of teaching. You are a false teacher.

 

[JAL]

To fail to provide these answers would render your view “gibberish”

Your tone here is difficult to explain, as if I'm sitting around dodging and evading questions. I'm not aware of any question that if I've evaded thus far. If I've overlooked something, please remind me.

Thought I would check back in on this thread for some reason. Some questions:

1. The “totality” as you call it, is matter from which God arose, correct? Where did the totality come from? You suggest God had to rise from matter, because the notion that God supersedes matter is “gibberish” (your favorite word), but you force no such mandate on the “totality”. Where did it come from?

Yes, creation ex nihilo is gibberish because:
(1) It seems to contradict the facts of experience. It doesn't seem logically feasible to aspire to pull a hammer out of an empty chest of tools.
(2) It seems to negate the principle of identity. Picture two pieces of matter. We say that the first piece is numerically distinct from the other. They are clearly distinct. Thus you will never be me, I will never be you, and neither of us will ever be God, at least not in any real sense although I did discuss, a couple times on this thread, the possible implications of physical merges. Ok so that's what I mean by the principle of identity. How does creation ex nihilo violate it?

Suppose God pulls two JALs out of nothing. Then He decides to shove them back into nothingness. Then he pulls one out. And so on. Which is the real JAL? Something gets lost in the shuffle in all this. If we try to square these possibilities with the principle of identity, we seem to end up with gibberish.

Eternal matter has no such difficulties. Each piece of matter has a definite identity, each piece is numerically distinct from the next.

2. You claim each particle has its own free will. You are conferring sentience to every particle in the universe. This defies science and scripture.

It defies YOUR interpretation of Scripture. As for science, it's really not too concerned with philosophical and religious particulars.

This would be a universe with absolutely no order and laws would not apply. I am sure that my kitchen table would be interested to know it doesn’t have to be the table anymore, and yet, it still is. What is forcing particle’s to act against their own free will?

Free will is probably 99.99999999999% dormant/inactive until there's a significant awakening unto self-awareness. Thus for all practical purposes, all ordinary matter is ABSOLUTELY DEAD (in stark contrast to our fully awakened souls). Or you can call it NEGLIGIBLY ALIVE if you prefer. It is therefore classifiable as INANIMATE MATTER. Upon it God exerts His own hand to simulate/fabricate/enact (whatever term you like) the so-called 'forces' (gravity, magnetism, nuclear forces).

That's my world view. If any matter even BEGINS to move ONE IOTA towards sentience - and while it is yet still a million miles away - I suspect that God's hand grips it, stifling the effort. So you don't have to worry that the kitchen table is going to get up and fly away anytime soon (try not to lose any sleep over it please).

3. Where did the “separate” matter God used to make man come from? God arises from all matter, but finds separate matter from which to make man?

Separate? There is only one Totality. God is separate in the sense of being one (huge) piece of the Totality that is numerically distinct from other pieces such as you and I.

4. Other than God’s vast lifespan, what truly makes Him any different from man?

I thought I covered this 20 times already. He labored for a (minimum of) 13 billion years to become holy, at which point He created Adam and Eve, stamping Himself upon their conscience, hence they were obligated to Him, just like your own kids, by virtue of conscience, are obligated to obey you.

You have made some extraordinary claims here, and they are all philosophically based. This is not enough. If materialism is your guiding foundation, you have actually crossed into the realm of the measurable and observable. This realm is observed, tested and proven only with science. You must now prove your theology scripturally AND scientifically. Please provide not only scripture, but also scientific answers to the 4 questions above.

Sure if you want to ignore every verse I've discussed since the start of this thread, you can call my views 'purely philosophical'. Obviously that makes you feel better - but it also raises questions about intellectual dishonesty.

This realm is observed, tested and proven only with science. You must now prove your theology scripturally AND scientifically.

I have to prove to you scientifically that the matter around us exists and behaves like inanimate matter? I thought you already knew that.

Tell you what, I'll give you some proof of inanimate matter once you prove to me that immaterial substance exists, firstly, and secondly that it is infinite. Fair enough?

 

[JAL]

You have made some extraordinary claims here, and they are all philosophically based.

More precisely, some of my arguments are extrapolation-based rather than philosophy-based. I sometimes extrapolate from the biblical data, as do all theologians.

Examples of mainstream extrapolations:
(1) Hypostatic union (which no one can comprehend)
(2) The Trinity (no one can comprehend the mainstream version)
(3) Immaterial soul (gibberish)
(4) Creation ex nihilo (gibberish)
(5) Federalism, i.e. Adam as our rep. (Judicially incoherent).
(6) Trichotomy. (Some of the worst gibberish on planet earth. Mostly held by pastors, though, not by real theologians).
(7) The new birth (all mainstream versions I've seen to date are either gibberish or self-contradictory). Mainstream theologians actually describe the new birth as 'inscrutable' (a technical term for 'humanly incomprehensible').
(8) Sanctification (same problem, because it's related to #7).
(9) Epistemology (Self-contradictory theories of knowledge, despite the obvious common-sense solution, which I'll perhaps discuss later).
(10) Ecclesiology. Mainstream church government is actually not found in Scripture. It's an extrapolation FROM the NT literature TO a 'modernized version' that SUPPOSEDLY is appropriate for today. I'm pretty sure it's not what God had in mind.
(11 to 100) If I were to walk into a Christian bookstore, in a matter of hours I could find another 90 extrapolations.

Since you think it's okay for mainstream Christians to extrapolate, doesn't it make you a total hypocrite to deprecate me for doing the same?

Also see post 162 where I contrasted one example of a mainstream extrapolation against my own to compare the degree of fidelity to Scripture.

 

[JAL]

You have no scriptures again to defend your position. Where is the scripture to declair God became holy? Where is your scripture to show that you can even pull that idea from?

All theologians use extrapolation. Please take a look at post 196, although I had already mentioned extrapolation at 162.

In the case that you're referring to, the extrapolation is quite solid. If God were INNATELY, IMMUTABLY holy, then His holiness has no merit and merits no praise. (That would be like praising me for being born human). You have to labor/suffer to merit praise (see Calvary).

I am a student of Greek and understand it very well.

Good, because this will help reinforce the extrapolation about God becoming holy. The Third Person's title is the 'Holy Pneuma'. This two-word title appears about 90 times in the NT, as I recall.

The first word, Holy, functions as an adjective in the title. When that same word is used as a verb, it means to MAKE HOLY. In English we don't have a VERB form of 'holy'. No one says:
..."God holified the tabernacle".
Rather we might say this:
..."God made the tabernacle holy"
Or we use the following word:
..."God SANCTIFIED the tabernacle"
And we do this both for Hebrew and Greek.

Going back to the Greek, Jesus applied the verb form TO HIMSELF at John 17:19. In other words, even as the Christian undergoes a process of sanctification, Christ described Himself as undergoing the same. This is consistent with Heb 5:8-9, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect...".

It's not that Christ was a sinner, it's just that sanctification is gradual/volumetric as described earlier. One is gradually filled with the Holy Breath. Otherwise, if He were PLENALLY filled from birth, He would have been too holy - too immune to sin - to experience real temptation in the wilderness. (The wilderness scene would thus be a lie and a farce).

But I digress. I'm simply asking you to weigh two positions.
(1) God is INNATELY, IMMUTABLY holy. It's all unchangeable.
(2) God is the kind of being who can BECOME holy over time.

In the incarnate Son, we have historic, biblical proof of concept 2.

 

[2tim_215]

God is deserving of praise for two simple reasons:
1) He created you giving you the ability to experience this life on earth (temporary) (even fro those who don't follow or believe in Him) and more importantly
2) given you the possibility of having life eternal in heaven along with Him if you choose to follow Him.

I think that this alone merits His praise although I'm sure a number of other things could be added.

 

[JAL]

God is deserving of praise for two simple reasons:
1) He created you giving you the ability to experience this life on earth (temporary) (even fro those who don't follow or believe in Him) and more importantly
2) given you the possibility of having life eternal in heaven along with Him if you choose to follow Him.

I think that this alone merits His praise although I'm sure a number of other things could be added.

Your heart pumps blood. Also you breathe. And you eat. Do you merit praise for these things?

You also engage in coitus as to have children. Do you merit praise for coitus? Do you merit praise for merely choosing to have children, as God chose to spawn us as His kids?

Your definition of merit is imprecise. You can't realistically assume that, just because someone DID something, he merits praise for it.

There is only one realistic definition of merit - it's a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. Pretty much every sermon in the last 2,000 years is founded upon this assumption.

Understand that if you don't find out the specific reason why God has merit - if you don't know ALL that He has accomplished and ALL that it has cost Him - you're cheating Him of praise,you're failing to recognize/acknowledge His accomplishments and give Him credit for them. Worse yet, you're potentially branding Him as UNACCOMPLISHED.

If you're willing, this thread can potentially open up your eyes as to why God has merit.

 

[2tim_215]

Your heart pumps blood. Also you breathe. And you eat. Do you merit praise for these things?

I don't but God surely does for without Him creating me, those things would never have been.

You also engage in coitus as to have children. Do you merit praise for coitus? Do you merit praise for merely choosing to have children, as God chose to spawn us as His kids?[/qwuote]
I don't merit it, but God sure does (providing it's you something enjoy having). As for children in today's age, it's also something we can choose to do or not to do. I personally appreciate our free will and praise Him for something I consider to be a gift.

Your definition of merit is imprecise. You can't realistically assume that, just because someone DID something, he merits praise for it.

There is only one realistic definition of merit - it's a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. Pretty much every sermon in the last 2,000 years is founded upon this assumption.

According to merriam-webster (mw.com):
Definition of merit
: reward or punishment due
b : the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one's deserts

• Opinions of his merit vary.

c : a praiseworthy quality : virtue

• but originality, as it is one of the highest, is also one of the rarest, of merits
• —E. A. Poe

d : character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also : achievement

• composed a number of works omerito
• —H. E. Starr

2: spiritual credit held to be earned by performance of righteous acts and to ensure future benefits

• the Crusades … did serve the desire to gain spiritual merit
• —Jacques Barzun

3a merits plural : the substance of a legal case apart from matters of jurisdiction, procedure, or form

• the plaintiff … is entitled to have its claim decided here on its merits
• —T. M. Maddes

b : individual significance or justification (see justification 1)

• the contention is without merit
• —E. B. Denny

Understand that if you don't find out the specific reason why God has merit - if you don't know ALL that He has accomplished and ALL that it has cost Him - you're cheating Him of praise,you're failing to recognize/acknowledge His accomplishments and give Him credit for them. Worse yet, you're potentially branding Him as UNACCOMPLISHED.

If you're willing, this thread can potentially open up your eyes as to why God has merit.

This thread opens my eyes to nothing other than you trying to discourage people from giving God praise. Praise and merit are two different words. Your attempting to discourage us from giving praise to God by implying that He's not deserving of it, which may be your opinion but it doesn't have any support in scripture.

You're the one it seems who may be branding Him unaccomplished. It's not a matter of what we don't know, it's a matter of what we do know, and what we do know is plenty enough to know that He's worthy of our praise. However if you do not think that He is, then don't do it but for those of us who think that He is, your opinion should not be a deterrent to us.