It has been too long since the last entry, but oh how time can pass when we're busy. Yet, having a busy schedule is not an excuse. This will be the subject of the next blog due to some rearranging today. I had the next blog ready to go, but the Spirit compelled me to step back and address another issue that is bothering me tremendously. This last Saturday was the anniversary for the Martin Luther King Jr. “I Have a Dream” speech. Conservative television host Glenn Beck held a patriotic speech of his own in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. called “Restoring Honor” that same day. While listening to his speech this morning, I was alarmed at the message that I heard. I would dare say that it was less patriotic and more religious than anything. More specifically, the message was that of Pluralism.
If anyone has heard much of Glenn Beck, it’s quite clear that he is a Mormon. This poses a serious problem for Christians. But before we delve into this, I want to focus on a specific passage from 1 Corinthians 10:20-21:
…the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
What does this say? Does it mean that Christians should not do anything with non-believers? Of course not. If we seclude ourselves from others, how could we spread the Good News to the world? It says that Christians should not participate in unholy practices and congregate with those who are working against the will of God. This should not limit us to imagery of Satanists and witchcraft like popular belief. This includes anything in the world that works against the God’s Word.
With Glenn Beck, he has professed his Mormonism many times. Mormonism is clearly incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but what Beck attempts is to merge all believers together regardless of faiths. This idea is in absolute contradiction to God’s commands. Christ’s death and resurrection was for our salvation, to pay the ransom of our souls. This means that Christ is the only means of salvation. If any faith does not accept that and follow the doctrine that is given to us in the Holy Bible, that faith is incorrect and does not lead to God but to Satan, hence, Paul’s revelation in the stated passage.
When multiple religions are mixed together, Pluralism begins. The importance of Christ disappears with the congregants. All that matters is if a person believes in “God” regardless of the religion. The problem is that no other religion in the world worships the same God as we do. At the rally, Beck is clear with his point though. He repeats his stance that he intends to bring all faiths together to focus on fixing the nation. This is Pluralism and a perfect example of what Paul means by dining with demons. If we participate in a doctrine that is contrary to the commands of God, we are actively following Satan and working against God’s will.
This is disturbing because many people, young and old, are being duped with this by the façade of politics and patriotism. Christians should put the Word of God before anything and follow his commands. Those who are unfamiliar with the Gospels or have never heard them before are drawn in to the attractive idea of unification and change. Regardless of the interesting rhetoric spewed by Beck concerning faiths, it’s very dangerous and many are being led astray.
What can we do as Christians then? The first step is to pray and turn to God’s Word. Study the Bible regularly. I don’t mean simply read through it but study, think deeply, and pray with the Word. This is the best defense God gives us in these situations. It is impenetrable by Satan. Next, congregate with fellow believers. This strengthens our faith and our fellowship with God’s church. Also, stand firm in your faith and know that there is only one truth, and that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The truth cannot be altered or made untrue. No matter how Beck tries to mix many faiths together, there is still only one God, one salvation, and one savior. Therefore, don’t support anything that is contrary to God’s Word. Just understand that such support can, and most likely will, lead someone astray from the Good News.
So what do we make of Mr. Beck’s rally and speech? I would first recommend that anyone who has not listened to it, go do so. This will acquaint you with the ammunition being used against God’s will. We must understand that we cannot support anything that works against God’s commands for his people regardless of what the occasion and circumstance. If we resist and follow God, he will provide and comfort us. More importantly, we keep the truth of the Gospel clear with coming generations and with those unfamiliar with Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Existence of God: The Moral Argument
The argument for the existence of God is immense, so I want to focus on specific points that are effective and practical in casual discussion with skeptics. I especially want to stay away from a deeply academic approach considering that it can lead to much deeper points in the argument which can frankly leave skeptics uninterested. Once again, reason and logic can fuel the defense of our faith well enough in this section of the argument. Hence, this week will concentrate on the Moral Argument.
This argument specifically focuses on the origin of morality in humanity. First, I believe it is wise to hear the opposing side before understanding how to defend against it. The view point of most skeptics is that of Moral Relativism. In this context, Moral Relativism states that morals are man made; they are created in specific contexts and only have grounding in those environment. Therefore, morals are only relative to the culture or society which creates it.
Moral Relativism seems to have fallen out of popularity in many philosophical circles, but it is still prevalent in thought even though it may not be called by this name. It seems logical to many that morals are rules, and rules are created to keep stability. Using the logic from last week, if rules are created, then there must be a creator of such. The argument starts with who the creator is. Moral Relativists believe that these rules differ from culture to culture to fit the needs and values of each environment. This seems logical in some ways. What the United States may consider less offensive sexual content on television may cost someone his or her life in Saudi Arabia. A big question now arises: who is wrong and who is right?
This brings us into the realm of absolute truth, which is also the demise of Moral Relativism. Moral Relativists will argue, possibly even subconsiously, that there is no absolute truth, only what works in that given cultural context. If the USA feels that pornography is perfectly fine for its citizens, who can dare tell Saudi Arabia that they are wrong in punishing “offenders.” This shows that morals are only relative to the culture that creates them. Hence, there is no absolute truth in morals.
What does any of this have to do with the existence of God? A defense against Moral Relativism will reveal how so. Consider all types of moral laws that we live our lives by. Are we able to waiver on some of them? Maybe we can with some such as cursing in public, the types of clothes that we wear, how to treat others that we consider friends. But notice that none of these focus on important moral issues. What about rape, murder, theft, and lying? Can we waiver on these points? For this argument, I always revert back to Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews. The Germans truly believed that they were doing the world a service by murdering as many “impure” beings as they could. According to the logic of Moral Relativism, would it be acceptable to excuse their actions based on that reasoning? They in fact did exactly what their culture said was good. Since there is no absolute truth, who can tell them that they did wrong? This would be a ridiculous stance. Anyone with a conscience can not accept that behavior, and everyone has a conscience.
Now all that is left is to ask what the alternative is. The truth is that there is a moral law giver. Their must be a being that has planted a conscience in the heart of every human being on earth that tells what right and wrong is. Regardless of miniscule differences in cultural beliefs, all humanity has an understanding of right and wrong. C. S. Lewis called this the Tao; Thomas Aquinas called it the Natural Law. Everyone has a sense of good and evil and knowledge of right and wrong regardless of the culture.
As for absolute truth, it is impossible not to have truth in the world. Even the statement is illogical. “There is no absolute truth.” If that is so, then that statement itself can’t be taken as truth because there is none. There must be truth or else the world would be absolute chaos in every possible way. As Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed in The Brothers Karamazov, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” If God does not exist, there is no moral law that humanity can live one, so there is nothing keeping anyone from doing anything he or she wishes. Civil rights cannot stop any one from doing what their heart desires even if it is murder or theft. Actually, would it not be their right to do as they wish?
There is a god in this world. The Moral Argument is only one of many ways to express this truth. As I stated last week, it takes more faith to believe that there is nothing behind the intricacy of life and universe than to believe that an omnipotent creator made what we all see, experience and more. I only scratch the surface with the Moral Argument; if anyone wishes of further readings or sources, feel free to send any emails to The Zealot’s Path. I would be happy to discuss further. If this stirs your conscience, giving you a buring in your heart, do not sit back and hope that it passes. God gives us all and impulse to seek him. Set off on the search and seek the truth no matter what it may be. Maybe the Path is the place to start.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Existence of God: The Skeptics Unexplainable Origin of Creation
These next two weeks will concentrate on the existence of God. This is quite a popular topic of discussion, and I don’t pretend to be an authority in scholarly research concerning this. I do know that rational thought can reveal all that God wishes for us to know. That will be the focus on this topic. I know all too well how much of “educated” academia pretends that rationality can destroy any belief in a god. Contrary to that, God has given his children brains to think, and we all can use them for his glory. So read on and see how pure thinking can stimulate your mind and stir your heart for the Lord.
With that being said, there is no better way to being than the understanding of creation. One reoccurring theme of Atheism that has become popular is that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang have explained away the belief of an omnipotent creator-god. Since these are taught religiously in public schools and higher education, many impressionable minds are bombarded with the idea that belief in a god is for uneducated, ignorant citizens of the world. Anyone with a shred of rational thought can’t believe in such archaic absurdity. I don’t intend to fight the arguments of these theories. Many have written volumes of books on this subject. This entry in the blog will show how rational thought reveals that all that we know and see is impossible without a creator.
Imagine that you are walking in a random field. The place looks barren and has no apparent signs of life for miles. You suddenly stumble over a sharp object sticking out of the dirt. As you look at it closely, you realize that it is the tip of a metal object. After digging, you come to understand that you’ve found an ancient sword that was buried in the dirt. Now ask yourself, is it reasonable to believe that either someone made the sword and placed it there, that it somehow evolved from something else, or even just somehow came into existence out of nowhere? Naturally, we can rely on the fact that it was created at some point in time by someone. Now apply this to life and the existence of the universe. Is it rational to think that the entire world, which is so intricate, suddenly popped up into existence?
Simple logic explains this point. If any one thing exists, it must have a beginning. If any one thing has a beginning, it must have a cause. Logic leads to this conclusion: the universe exists; therefore, it had a beginning. The universe had a beginning; therefore, it had a cause. In conversations with Evolutionists and Big Bang Theorists, the argument will come up that either life evolved over time or that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. They are two disconnected ideas, but both are used as ammunition to shut down Theists’ belief in a creator-god. Let’s see how these arguments hold up to the steps of logic previously stated.
Where does honey come from? It comes from Bees, of course. What about oak wood? This wood is from an oak tree. Where did the bee or tree come from? They come from a previous bee and tree. But, what about them? Where do they come from? They are from another bee and tree before them. Can you see where this line of questioning leads? We are now going in circles. No matter how far we trace the previous bee or oak tree, we’re searching for the first bee and oak tree that was created by someone beyond the comprehension of our world. The bee and oak tree existed and had a beginning. Now we’re left asking what the cause is.
The Evolutionists have no grounding in this argument. They may bring up that the bee evolved from something else or the tree did likewise, but they fail to address that whatever the previous being was, where it came from or what the beginning was. As much as Evolution can attempt to explain, it can’t address the point of creation. Big Bang Theorists have a little better attempt at the explanation but not much. They believe that all can be traced back to the Big Bang but following the logic used before, what caused the Big Bang? What caused the matter that that was a part of the Big Bang?
These logical questions, though they may seem simplistic to some, are detrimental to science’s skeptical stance against the idea of a creator. While the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang hold attractive benefits for skeptics, they have major holes that can’t, no matter how much they try, support the possibility of there being no god. What some consider irreproachable scientific theories takes more faith to believe than the truth of Jesus Christ.
This is entry is only a fragment of deep discussion concerning the existence of God. If anyone has questions about sources or further readings, contact The Zealot’s Path. Remember that God is with us always, and he gives us the tools to understand him better and spread his word. We are all confronted at times with challenging questions that seem more than we can handle, but his Spirit is there to guide us and work through us for his glory. Be brave and use the mind that God has given you.
With that being said, there is no better way to being than the understanding of creation. One reoccurring theme of Atheism that has become popular is that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang have explained away the belief of an omnipotent creator-god. Since these are taught religiously in public schools and higher education, many impressionable minds are bombarded with the idea that belief in a god is for uneducated, ignorant citizens of the world. Anyone with a shred of rational thought can’t believe in such archaic absurdity. I don’t intend to fight the arguments of these theories. Many have written volumes of books on this subject. This entry in the blog will show how rational thought reveals that all that we know and see is impossible without a creator.
Imagine that you are walking in a random field. The place looks barren and has no apparent signs of life for miles. You suddenly stumble over a sharp object sticking out of the dirt. As you look at it closely, you realize that it is the tip of a metal object. After digging, you come to understand that you’ve found an ancient sword that was buried in the dirt. Now ask yourself, is it reasonable to believe that either someone made the sword and placed it there, that it somehow evolved from something else, or even just somehow came into existence out of nowhere? Naturally, we can rely on the fact that it was created at some point in time by someone. Now apply this to life and the existence of the universe. Is it rational to think that the entire world, which is so intricate, suddenly popped up into existence?
Simple logic explains this point. If any one thing exists, it must have a beginning. If any one thing has a beginning, it must have a cause. Logic leads to this conclusion: the universe exists; therefore, it had a beginning. The universe had a beginning; therefore, it had a cause. In conversations with Evolutionists and Big Bang Theorists, the argument will come up that either life evolved over time or that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. They are two disconnected ideas, but both are used as ammunition to shut down Theists’ belief in a creator-god. Let’s see how these arguments hold up to the steps of logic previously stated.
Where does honey come from? It comes from Bees, of course. What about oak wood? This wood is from an oak tree. Where did the bee or tree come from? They come from a previous bee and tree. But, what about them? Where do they come from? They are from another bee and tree before them. Can you see where this line of questioning leads? We are now going in circles. No matter how far we trace the previous bee or oak tree, we’re searching for the first bee and oak tree that was created by someone beyond the comprehension of our world. The bee and oak tree existed and had a beginning. Now we’re left asking what the cause is.
The Evolutionists have no grounding in this argument. They may bring up that the bee evolved from something else or the tree did likewise, but they fail to address that whatever the previous being was, where it came from or what the beginning was. As much as Evolution can attempt to explain, it can’t address the point of creation. Big Bang Theorists have a little better attempt at the explanation but not much. They believe that all can be traced back to the Big Bang but following the logic used before, what caused the Big Bang? What caused the matter that that was a part of the Big Bang?
These logical questions, though they may seem simplistic to some, are detrimental to science’s skeptical stance against the idea of a creator. While the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang hold attractive benefits for skeptics, they have major holes that can’t, no matter how much they try, support the possibility of there being no god. What some consider irreproachable scientific theories takes more faith to believe than the truth of Jesus Christ.
This is entry is only a fragment of deep discussion concerning the existence of God. If anyone has questions about sources or further readings, contact The Zealot’s Path. Remember that God is with us always, and he gives us the tools to understand him better and spread his word. We are all confronted at times with challenging questions that seem more than we can handle, but his Spirit is there to guide us and work through us for his glory. Be brave and use the mind that God has given you.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Sickness and Joy in Entertainment
Being a product of this technologically dependent world, I enjoy television, music, and movies. I am not a fanatic, but I do love entertainment. Yet, I find myself lacking the fulfillment that it used to give me. I used to love watching action, comedy, and horror movies late at night. I would listen to any music if I liked it regardless of the “message” that it contained. Now most of these disturb my conscience instead of entertain. This has been on my mind for a while but has recently become a topic of discussion for me.
I watched a specific horror movie one night in which a group of strangers was quarantined in an apartment building. All were eventually infected with super rabies and brutally murdered by each other. While it seemed to bother me at first, it eventually passed, and I proceeded to watch more movies of the sort. This last weekend, I watched a Sci-Fi movie with alien weapons that splattered enemies like watermelons at a Gallagher show. I was deeply disturbed by this movie. It left me feeling worse than I expected any movie should.
I was then left wondering why I was so upset with the movie. One can quickly reply with the idea that I was “too caught up” in it. This is possible, but there is a bigger picture behind that. I sat back and thought about what I actually just watched and what it means for humanity. Hollywood clearly makes movies to make money. If the movies don’t sell, they lose money. We see that there has always been bloody action, crude, vulgar comedy, sci-fi, and horror movies as well as television shows in these genres on for decades. Logically, we can assume that there is a demand for these things. Think about that: there is a demand for these movies. Sin in humanity has made it popular to watch people get tortured, shot, writhe in pain, stabbed, get cheated on, lie, steal, and even have sex in front of us. Clearly, Hollywood makes movies that they can make money on due to demand. The entertainment we crave is truly sickening.
I see now why such movies disturb me. The more I focus on the Lord, sin becomes detestable. These horrible visual productions of sin only hurt our walk with Christ. Would Christ find entertainment in watching people torture each other? Would he cheer when a man avenged his wife’s death by brutally murdering her murderer? Would he enjoy watching zombies eat people alive? Then, why would we want to indulge watching these acts?
We all have watched these types of movies and saw horrible things happen to people and animals. As followers of Christ, we cannot and must not look to these deplorable things for joy. Turn to God first, and he will fill our hearts with righteousness to the point of joy and gladness in holy things. I don’t mean that watching these movies is a sin. Finding joy and entertainment in sinful, unrighteous acts is what dangerously affects our walk on the path of faith.
The challenge that the path of the zealot now gives all of us is to examine ourselves. Do these types of entertainment disturb us? Ask yourself if Jesus would watch and enjoy these movies, shows, or music. Should we be doing so then? If we claim to be Christians, we claim to live Christ-like lives. Would enjoying the acts of sin be acceptable actions and external examples of Christ for nonbelievers? The answer is no. As I said before, watching these movies is not a sin. The “comfort” and joy that we attempt to find in movies and sitcoms that promote sin leads us to enjoy sin. We should hate sin, not enjoy it.
What do we do then? Stop watching movies? Not necessarily. The best thing to do with our lives is to rid ourselves of anything that is contrary to the word of God; this means anything from television to bad habits. Don’t go to the extreme though. I had a friend tell me one time that any music that didn’t glorify God was bad. I guess this would include “Happy Birthday.” The point is that not everything will glorify God directly as church hymn, but not everything works contrary to his glory. Be smart, and evaluate your surroundings.
“Because I love your commands more than gold, more than pure gold, and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong path” Psalm 119:127-128.
I watched a specific horror movie one night in which a group of strangers was quarantined in an apartment building. All were eventually infected with super rabies and brutally murdered by each other. While it seemed to bother me at first, it eventually passed, and I proceeded to watch more movies of the sort. This last weekend, I watched a Sci-Fi movie with alien weapons that splattered enemies like watermelons at a Gallagher show. I was deeply disturbed by this movie. It left me feeling worse than I expected any movie should.
I was then left wondering why I was so upset with the movie. One can quickly reply with the idea that I was “too caught up” in it. This is possible, but there is a bigger picture behind that. I sat back and thought about what I actually just watched and what it means for humanity. Hollywood clearly makes movies to make money. If the movies don’t sell, they lose money. We see that there has always been bloody action, crude, vulgar comedy, sci-fi, and horror movies as well as television shows in these genres on for decades. Logically, we can assume that there is a demand for these things. Think about that: there is a demand for these movies. Sin in humanity has made it popular to watch people get tortured, shot, writhe in pain, stabbed, get cheated on, lie, steal, and even have sex in front of us. Clearly, Hollywood makes movies that they can make money on due to demand. The entertainment we crave is truly sickening.
I see now why such movies disturb me. The more I focus on the Lord, sin becomes detestable. These horrible visual productions of sin only hurt our walk with Christ. Would Christ find entertainment in watching people torture each other? Would he cheer when a man avenged his wife’s death by brutally murdering her murderer? Would he enjoy watching zombies eat people alive? Then, why would we want to indulge watching these acts?
We all have watched these types of movies and saw horrible things happen to people and animals. As followers of Christ, we cannot and must not look to these deplorable things for joy. Turn to God first, and he will fill our hearts with righteousness to the point of joy and gladness in holy things. I don’t mean that watching these movies is a sin. Finding joy and entertainment in sinful, unrighteous acts is what dangerously affects our walk on the path of faith.
The challenge that the path of the zealot now gives all of us is to examine ourselves. Do these types of entertainment disturb us? Ask yourself if Jesus would watch and enjoy these movies, shows, or music. Should we be doing so then? If we claim to be Christians, we claim to live Christ-like lives. Would enjoying the acts of sin be acceptable actions and external examples of Christ for nonbelievers? The answer is no. As I said before, watching these movies is not a sin. The “comfort” and joy that we attempt to find in movies and sitcoms that promote sin leads us to enjoy sin. We should hate sin, not enjoy it.
What do we do then? Stop watching movies? Not necessarily. The best thing to do with our lives is to rid ourselves of anything that is contrary to the word of God; this means anything from television to bad habits. Don’t go to the extreme though. I had a friend tell me one time that any music that didn’t glorify God was bad. I guess this would include “Happy Birthday.” The point is that not everything will glorify God directly as church hymn, but not everything works contrary to his glory. Be smart, and evaluate your surroundings.
“Because I love your commands more than gold, more than pure gold, and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong path” Psalm 119:127-128.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
If there is such a good god, why does he let bad things happen to good people?
A very common argument that skeptics robotically spit at believers is the question that if an all-loving, omnipotent god exists, why does he let bad things to happen to everyone, more specifically, bad things to good people. Initially, we may not be prepared to answer such a question. It tends to take the conversation down an avenue where many feel uncomfortable discussing. Maybe this is due to not thinking much on the topic or just not reading God’s Word much leading to an inability to defend the faith. Despite the panic we may feel by being approached by this question, the argument is easily discredited with elementary logic.
The first track to answer this question deals with the issue of free will. When concentrating on this, be sure to clarify the idea that without free will, we’re all robots. For instance, if a man jumps from a building twenty stories high and God catches him ten feet from the ground, would this be a good thing? The man’s life was saved; a good person was saved from a bad thing. On this earth, this can be a bad thing.
Think of what just happened: the man made a choice to jump. His choice was overridden by God, and a controlled outcome resulted. Now the question is what can come from this type of existence. It illustrates that God would control our lives and if we are controlled, we have no choice; we’re puppets. This is not what God wants for his children. Imagine that another man loves a specific woman. She clearly doesn’t want the man. Having utter control over her, he forces her to love him. Is this a bad or good thing? Most will agree that it is wrong to force someone to do something they don’t want, yet this is the same type of situation with jumping from a roof with God catching the jumper. God didn’t create robots; he desired a creation that by choice can turn to him. Without choice, we’re robots living a robotic existence.
But what about situations where bad things happen without choice like cancer? This still deals with free will. If we’re to be given the choice to make decisions and have true freedom, we must accept the fact that the bad comes with the good. If I‘m cooking in the kitchen, I make a choice to start the burner. The burner is good because it cooks my dinner, yet it will burn me if I put my hand on it or eat the hot food without letting it cool. The point is that we must accept the fact bad comes with good. Consider the alternative: we would have no control over thoughts, emotions, and movements. He doesn’t want this, nor do we.
The second point to make is that we do live in a sinful world. Because of what we did by sinning against God’s will, the world is now cursed with sin and is in an imperfect state. In this state, we encounter pain, death, aging, murder, disease, sexual perversion and immorality just to name a few. God does let this happen because we brought it on ourselves. God is so holy and just, he keeps all promises and allows good and bad things to happen. Image a judge who just convicted a mass murderer that changes his mind to let the murderer go after a short stay in prison. What should happen to the judge? Would we have trust in the justice that is passed? God will not waiver from his promises or judgments.
The pitfall to watch for in these types of conversations is to evaluate the setting in which the conversation comes. If it is a quick discussion with a friend on the street, a person may want to tailor the points to fit the scenario. A deep philosophic discussion may not be fruitful at this point. When a time comes later for a sit-down conversation, this is when a deep illustration will come into play. Keep this in mind and pray for God’s guidance. He will provide for us all.
God’s commission for us all is to spread his Good News. Even though situations like these don’t always directly address Christ’s resurrection, guiding others through these issues will lead them to where they are more willing to accept the Gospel. Remember, God says to love him with all of our mind, heart, and soul. He gives us the capability to handle these philosophical questions for times like these. Let the Spirit speak through you and do his will.
The first track to answer this question deals with the issue of free will. When concentrating on this, be sure to clarify the idea that without free will, we’re all robots. For instance, if a man jumps from a building twenty stories high and God catches him ten feet from the ground, would this be a good thing? The man’s life was saved; a good person was saved from a bad thing. On this earth, this can be a bad thing.
Think of what just happened: the man made a choice to jump. His choice was overridden by God, and a controlled outcome resulted. Now the question is what can come from this type of existence. It illustrates that God would control our lives and if we are controlled, we have no choice; we’re puppets. This is not what God wants for his children. Imagine that another man loves a specific woman. She clearly doesn’t want the man. Having utter control over her, he forces her to love him. Is this a bad or good thing? Most will agree that it is wrong to force someone to do something they don’t want, yet this is the same type of situation with jumping from a roof with God catching the jumper. God didn’t create robots; he desired a creation that by choice can turn to him. Without choice, we’re robots living a robotic existence.
But what about situations where bad things happen without choice like cancer? This still deals with free will. If we’re to be given the choice to make decisions and have true freedom, we must accept the fact that the bad comes with the good. If I‘m cooking in the kitchen, I make a choice to start the burner. The burner is good because it cooks my dinner, yet it will burn me if I put my hand on it or eat the hot food without letting it cool. The point is that we must accept the fact bad comes with good. Consider the alternative: we would have no control over thoughts, emotions, and movements. He doesn’t want this, nor do we.
The second point to make is that we do live in a sinful world. Because of what we did by sinning against God’s will, the world is now cursed with sin and is in an imperfect state. In this state, we encounter pain, death, aging, murder, disease, sexual perversion and immorality just to name a few. God does let this happen because we brought it on ourselves. God is so holy and just, he keeps all promises and allows good and bad things to happen. Image a judge who just convicted a mass murderer that changes his mind to let the murderer go after a short stay in prison. What should happen to the judge? Would we have trust in the justice that is passed? God will not waiver from his promises or judgments.
The pitfall to watch for in these types of conversations is to evaluate the setting in which the conversation comes. If it is a quick discussion with a friend on the street, a person may want to tailor the points to fit the scenario. A deep philosophic discussion may not be fruitful at this point. When a time comes later for a sit-down conversation, this is when a deep illustration will come into play. Keep this in mind and pray for God’s guidance. He will provide for us all.
God’s commission for us all is to spread his Good News. Even though situations like these don’t always directly address Christ’s resurrection, guiding others through these issues will lead them to where they are more willing to accept the Gospel. Remember, God says to love him with all of our mind, heart, and soul. He gives us the capability to handle these philosophical questions for times like these. Let the Spirit speak through you and do his will.
Monday, May 24, 2010
No Work, No Food: An Observation of Scriptural Nourishment
If I can state one specific idea of human life that is believed to be essential to living, it would be the notion that if I truly want to do good for myself, I must work for it. I’ve heard numerous times that in order to advance in life, I need to work hard, and it seems to be true. In order for most people to advance at their jobs, relationships, hobbies, sports, and anything else in life for that matter, they must work. Students slave over term papers and study continuously for higher grades, parents struggle to raise good, productive children in the world, and it’s even apparent in recreation how important it is to work hard. It seems that we have found the ancient secret to success: work hard and prosper.
But if this is true, why is it not taken into account for Christian faith? It seem that many Christians will claim their faith but will not take defining steps toward a dedicated following of Christ. Maybe it’s because of verses such as Ephesians 2:8. Many feel that since works do not save, there is no reason to labor for faith. I must admit that I somewhat believed this at one point in my life. I felt that since I am already saved, I don’t need to work for my faith; it is given by God, and I cannot earn it, so why exert so much effort?
This is a misleading notion when it comes to scriptural nourishment. Earlier in my life, I did follow Jesus, but I didn’t follow the best that I could. I didn’t read his Word often or pray much. I somehow abandoned the idea of “no work, no food” and was tremendously weak in my faith while not knowing it at the time. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul speaks of this idea of working. The rule Paul gives those in the church is that a man must work or not eat. This is where the social thought of working for gain springs into play. The problem is that there is an implausible chasm between the idea that is applied to most peoples’ lives and what Paul actually means. It’s not for gain that we work, for Christ has gained all for his followers; it’s for nourishment.
This idea of “no work, no food” is on a spiritual plain. We all must understand that God’s hand is stretched out, reaching for us to take hold where he will support our lives to the fullest. Imagine setting at a dinner table. You take the food and place it into your mouth, chew it, and ultimately swallow it. No one stands behind you holding your jaws open forcing the food into your mouth regardless if you want it or not. God’s Word works in the same regards. It is there for our nourishment and benefit, but we must make the step to take it. Otherwise, we are idle at the table waiting for the food to casually float to our mouths and abruptly shove itself in. This is force feeding, and Christ doesn’t force himself on to us. Consider the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:15. As the feast is prepared, many guests were “invited.” The man doesn’t send out a search party for specific detainees and take them into custody. In the same sense, God reveals himself to us, giving us the power and opportunity to turn to him. We are not forced.
Simply waiting for the food to nourish our bodies as it sets on the plate is as if waiting for God to inspire us without us wanting the inspiration. This is sheer idleness. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul’s main focus is on idleness of the spirit. He’s not concerned for the physical but the spiritual actions of his Christian brethren. This should call for a self-evaluation of every Christian. The Lord desires for us to work and live in him. If we do not, we are idle in our faith which leads to unfruitfulness. How can anyone notice our joy and the love of Christ through our idleness?
Not only does it keep us from spreading Christ greatness to the world, this idleness weakens us in devastating ways. In some aspects, it is like a learned skill. The more we use the skill, the better we become with it. The less used, the weaker it turns out to be. If we concentrate on our faith and nourish it with prayer, reading the scripture, and life application, we will not be weakened but strengthened in Christ’s grace. If we neglect God’s tools for spiritual betterment, we will become brittle, frail Christians not living to our fullest.
But if this is true, why is it not taken into account for Christian faith? It seem that many Christians will claim their faith but will not take defining steps toward a dedicated following of Christ. Maybe it’s because of verses such as Ephesians 2:8. Many feel that since works do not save, there is no reason to labor for faith. I must admit that I somewhat believed this at one point in my life. I felt that since I am already saved, I don’t need to work for my faith; it is given by God, and I cannot earn it, so why exert so much effort?
This is a misleading notion when it comes to scriptural nourishment. Earlier in my life, I did follow Jesus, but I didn’t follow the best that I could. I didn’t read his Word often or pray much. I somehow abandoned the idea of “no work, no food” and was tremendously weak in my faith while not knowing it at the time. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul speaks of this idea of working. The rule Paul gives those in the church is that a man must work or not eat. This is where the social thought of working for gain springs into play. The problem is that there is an implausible chasm between the idea that is applied to most peoples’ lives and what Paul actually means. It’s not for gain that we work, for Christ has gained all for his followers; it’s for nourishment.
This idea of “no work, no food” is on a spiritual plain. We all must understand that God’s hand is stretched out, reaching for us to take hold where he will support our lives to the fullest. Imagine setting at a dinner table. You take the food and place it into your mouth, chew it, and ultimately swallow it. No one stands behind you holding your jaws open forcing the food into your mouth regardless if you want it or not. God’s Word works in the same regards. It is there for our nourishment and benefit, but we must make the step to take it. Otherwise, we are idle at the table waiting for the food to casually float to our mouths and abruptly shove itself in. This is force feeding, and Christ doesn’t force himself on to us. Consider the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:15. As the feast is prepared, many guests were “invited.” The man doesn’t send out a search party for specific detainees and take them into custody. In the same sense, God reveals himself to us, giving us the power and opportunity to turn to him. We are not forced.
Simply waiting for the food to nourish our bodies as it sets on the plate is as if waiting for God to inspire us without us wanting the inspiration. This is sheer idleness. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul’s main focus is on idleness of the spirit. He’s not concerned for the physical but the spiritual actions of his Christian brethren. This should call for a self-evaluation of every Christian. The Lord desires for us to work and live in him. If we do not, we are idle in our faith which leads to unfruitfulness. How can anyone notice our joy and the love of Christ through our idleness?
Not only does it keep us from spreading Christ greatness to the world, this idleness weakens us in devastating ways. In some aspects, it is like a learned skill. The more we use the skill, the better we become with it. The less used, the weaker it turns out to be. If we concentrate on our faith and nourish it with prayer, reading the scripture, and life application, we will not be weakened but strengthened in Christ’s grace. If we neglect God’s tools for spiritual betterment, we will become brittle, frail Christians not living to our fullest.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Are the Gospels Reliable?
For the next few weeks, the Path will focus on some essential Apologetics. Apologetics is the defense of the faith. While most people think that Christianity is a religion of unsustainable fairy tales, it’s actually a historically based religion that reveals the truth unlike any other. 1 Peter 3:15 states that all Christians must be prepared to give the reason as to why we have the hope we do. Consider how Paul and the Apostles preached after Christ’s ascension. They argued and discussed with others the proof they had to show that Christ was who he said he was. God has given us these tools to use for his Kingdom; we must embrace them and use them to help others know the truth.
This first installment will focus on the reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament. I will approach the situation with questions of a skeptic and answer each one in brief detail, so we can all be prepared for these types of questions when thrown at us. Books have been written on this subject, but I will do my best to keep it as brief as it can be while maintaining for it the attention it demands.
Who really are the authors?
It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that the names that are attributed to the biographies are who they say they are. With the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew was one of Christ’s apostles and former tax collector. Mark is essentially “anonymous,” but there is good evidence to believe that it was written by a close companion of Peter named Mark. No other competing claims carry any weight. Luke was written by Luke, one of Paul’s traveling companions. There is no reason to dispute this either. With the Gospel of John, it is clear that it was written by the Apostle John as he refers to himself throughout the book. He is “the one Jesus loved.” While some try to dispute these points, there is no good reason to doubt these traditional beliefs, not to mention the good proof that each provide.
Why do the Gospels skip parts of Jesus’ life?
A major error that people make when approaching the Bible is that they look into the book with twenty-first century eyes. The authors and literary styles were doing different things than what we would expect in a piece of contemporary writing. Ancients would only look at the important points in a biography and give attention to that. They would not give equal importance to all parts of Jesus’ life such as him growing as a young boy or late teenager. They looked to tell lessons to be learned; therefore, they focused on the important points in Jesus’ life.
Are they based on hearsay or actual eyewitness accounts?
Eyewitness accounts are what the Gospels are based on. One only needs to look at the authors to see this. Matthew and John were with Jesus during these events. Mark and Luke were close to the Apostles, so they were close to primary sources. It is also mentioned in the Gospels that others such as James brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and 500 others all witnessed Jesus on multiple occasions. There were many actual accounts of this. What many do not realize is that the Gospels were written as historical biographies. For instance, Luke did exhaustive research on this, and the purpose was to give an accurate account of what happened.
Were the Gospels recorded accurately between the time the events happened and written?
While the dates of the Gospels were written no earlier than approximately twenty years after Christ’s Resurrection, they were still written within the time span of the eyewitnesses; therefore, many people who knew the truth would contest the Gospels if they were false, but this never happened except for the Jews who tried to deceitfully cover up the truth, but even they could not argue specific facts. Matthew was written around 70-90 A.D., Mark in the late 50’s, Luke about 62, and John in the 90’s.
This seems like a long time to us but to ancient text standards, this is a very short time. A good example that is given is the historical accounts of Alexander the Great. His biographies are considered historically viable, but they were written more than 400 years after his death, and they are still considered accurate.
Hasn’t legend and myth developed over time?
No, there was not enough time between the events and the writings to promote legend, especially since there were eyewitnesses still alive during these times. Alexander the Great did develop legend, but this did not happen until centuries after the writers of his biographies died. There was simply not enough time for this to happen with the Gospels. Also, the points that are made that tell of Christ’s divinity are mentioned previously to the Gospels. It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that Paul recites in his epistles early church creeds that he learned after his conversion only a few years after Christ’s ascension. These verses include Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, and 1 Corinthians 15.
Were the Gospels and New Testament preserved accurately throughout the centuries?
Yes, we have over five thousand Greek copied manuscripts. This does not count other languages. That would bring the total to 24,000 in all. This is more than any other ancient manuscript available. The only other competing text is Homer’s Iliad which only has a little over 2000 copies in original language. Homer’s copies have approximately five hundred to a one thousand year gap between copies, also. With so many copies to compare, the idea that they were not preserved accurately has virtually disappeared.
But there are inaccuracies and copying errors. This means they are unreliable, right?
This is the best ammunition for a skeptic. Many try to say that since there are variants, the New Testament must be wrong. They are mistaken by what is meant by “variants.” There are variations among the manuscripts, but it’s all very small variations that do not jeopardize any doctrine. Most are small spelling variants and sentence structure changes that do not matter in Greek like it does in English. While there are some, none are detrimental.
All of these points made are all researchable and can be checked. If anyone wishes for a list of sources, please let me know. Hopefully the next time we are caught up in a discussion about the bible with a skeptic, these points can help give us the ability to speak boldly about the hope that we have in Christ.
This first installment will focus on the reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament. I will approach the situation with questions of a skeptic and answer each one in brief detail, so we can all be prepared for these types of questions when thrown at us. Books have been written on this subject, but I will do my best to keep it as brief as it can be while maintaining for it the attention it demands.
Who really are the authors?
It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that the names that are attributed to the biographies are who they say they are. With the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew was one of Christ’s apostles and former tax collector. Mark is essentially “anonymous,” but there is good evidence to believe that it was written by a close companion of Peter named Mark. No other competing claims carry any weight. Luke was written by Luke, one of Paul’s traveling companions. There is no reason to dispute this either. With the Gospel of John, it is clear that it was written by the Apostle John as he refers to himself throughout the book. He is “the one Jesus loved.” While some try to dispute these points, there is no good reason to doubt these traditional beliefs, not to mention the good proof that each provide.
Why do the Gospels skip parts of Jesus’ life?
A major error that people make when approaching the Bible is that they look into the book with twenty-first century eyes. The authors and literary styles were doing different things than what we would expect in a piece of contemporary writing. Ancients would only look at the important points in a biography and give attention to that. They would not give equal importance to all parts of Jesus’ life such as him growing as a young boy or late teenager. They looked to tell lessons to be learned; therefore, they focused on the important points in Jesus’ life.
Are they based on hearsay or actual eyewitness accounts?
Eyewitness accounts are what the Gospels are based on. One only needs to look at the authors to see this. Matthew and John were with Jesus during these events. Mark and Luke were close to the Apostles, so they were close to primary sources. It is also mentioned in the Gospels that others such as James brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and 500 others all witnessed Jesus on multiple occasions. There were many actual accounts of this. What many do not realize is that the Gospels were written as historical biographies. For instance, Luke did exhaustive research on this, and the purpose was to give an accurate account of what happened.
Were the Gospels recorded accurately between the time the events happened and written?
While the dates of the Gospels were written no earlier than approximately twenty years after Christ’s Resurrection, they were still written within the time span of the eyewitnesses; therefore, many people who knew the truth would contest the Gospels if they were false, but this never happened except for the Jews who tried to deceitfully cover up the truth, but even they could not argue specific facts. Matthew was written around 70-90 A.D., Mark in the late 50’s, Luke about 62, and John in the 90’s.
This seems like a long time to us but to ancient text standards, this is a very short time. A good example that is given is the historical accounts of Alexander the Great. His biographies are considered historically viable, but they were written more than 400 years after his death, and they are still considered accurate.
Hasn’t legend and myth developed over time?
No, there was not enough time between the events and the writings to promote legend, especially since there were eyewitnesses still alive during these times. Alexander the Great did develop legend, but this did not happen until centuries after the writers of his biographies died. There was simply not enough time for this to happen with the Gospels. Also, the points that are made that tell of Christ’s divinity are mentioned previously to the Gospels. It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that Paul recites in his epistles early church creeds that he learned after his conversion only a few years after Christ’s ascension. These verses include Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, and 1 Corinthians 15.
Were the Gospels and New Testament preserved accurately throughout the centuries?
Yes, we have over five thousand Greek copied manuscripts. This does not count other languages. That would bring the total to 24,000 in all. This is more than any other ancient manuscript available. The only other competing text is Homer’s Iliad which only has a little over 2000 copies in original language. Homer’s copies have approximately five hundred to a one thousand year gap between copies, also. With so many copies to compare, the idea that they were not preserved accurately has virtually disappeared.
But there are inaccuracies and copying errors. This means they are unreliable, right?
This is the best ammunition for a skeptic. Many try to say that since there are variants, the New Testament must be wrong. They are mistaken by what is meant by “variants.” There are variations among the manuscripts, but it’s all very small variations that do not jeopardize any doctrine. Most are small spelling variants and sentence structure changes that do not matter in Greek like it does in English. While there are some, none are detrimental.
All of these points made are all researchable and can be checked. If anyone wishes for a list of sources, please let me know. Hopefully the next time we are caught up in a discussion about the bible with a skeptic, these points can help give us the ability to speak boldly about the hope that we have in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)