Psalm 119:105
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
What a glorious verse! Especially when taken in context. I think that people misinterpret this verse in an effort to give hope in specific situations. And there is still truth in the common misinterpretation of this passage. But, even if the misinterpretation does give hope, the hope is limited. The true and pure meaning of this passage is all the more glorious.
Read verses 104 and 106: "Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way." "I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments."
Now read verse 105 again: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
The normal teaching of this verse, almost always taught alone while ignoring the surrounding verses (note the previous verse is under a different hebrew letter, however is a grand segway to the following poetic segment), is that all you have to do to find God's will for specific situations is read the Bible. And much of this is true, however the teaching usually locks arms with false understandings of God's will - that God's word and prayer are spiritual portals to understanding the future, knowing the exact decisions God wants us to make, and knowing God's purpose behind situations, and that God generally wants you to know these things ahead of time. I will not focus on this teaching now. Rather, I want to express the glorious teaching in Psalm 119:105. Perhaps a proper understanding of God's will will be revealed as a consequence.
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." God's word shows us how God wants us to live ALL the time! The word that comes to my mind is "illumination." It gives us a taste of God's perspective. This illumination is not meant to show us what decision to make so as to take the struggle out of life and leave no need for faith-based decision making, but rather to give us the outlook that will transform our every-day lives, including the way we go about making specific decisions. This illumination via the Word is first and foremost for the sake of sanctification. Decisions are a part of life. They are not the focal point of God's will. I like how the ESV translates 1 Thessalonians 4:3a: "This is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should..." Paul basically uses "sanctification" as another word for God's will. He then goes to specify sanctification to the Thessalonians, providing life changing details. His reason for change, per the will of God, is that "God has not called us for impurity, but holiness." And this sanctification takes place through the influence of the Holy Spirit (v.8)
So then David's full discourse helps reveal that God's will is "fleshed-out" from the inside-out as one is influenced by God's personal Spirit through the reading of His Word. He changes our mind. He changes our heart. He changes our perspective. He changes our life. And this is the will of God. Not that we should not ask for guidance, as this is a natural reaction of a dependant to an authority when faced with the unknown. But when we ask, it is not like we are taking a responsibility off of our desk and placing it on God's until he makes the unknown known. We must still make decisions even though we are left without surity sometimes. The difference is, our unsurity is accompanied by the fact for those who love God all things work together for good,for those who are called according to his purpose. It's far less about what happens and far more about our relationship with God. So seek God! Let Him illumine your eyes to life from His perspective.

I recently read a quote by Erasmus that states, "By dying for a conviction a man proves only that he is sincere, not that he is right." The quote got me thinking about the evidence we hold for the Resurrection of Christ, being that the disciples were willing to die for their claims. Though this is powerful for those who already believe in Christ's resurrection, it would not give an ounce of proof for skeptics who desire something more. Though, I wonder, is providing "proof" something we should focus on? Can men be "convinced to the point of faith in Christ" by means other than external proof? In Hebrews 6, it is written that God did certain things to convince the "heirs of the promise" of His trustworthiness. In Acts 1, it is written that Christ "gave many convincing proofs that He was alive." Paul went out reasoning (literally, "apologizing") with people concerning Christ many times. My conclusions that follow will be basic. I will not dig deeply into the souls of men and discuss methods by which people are convinced to the point of faith. But I do want to distinguish, since the topic is here, the difference between proof and faith, and each role in bringing people to Christ.
Proof for Christ is limited. But evidence is still there. The Bible speaks of nature showing off God. Not that nature convinces men of the Gospel of Christ. However it is evidence of a theos (though many justifications arise from skeptics about such evidence, just as any one of us so easily and often justifies our own sins. Thus, it is to be expected). This evidence, when received, begs the question of how this theos relates to us, His intelligent and therefore purposeful design. This evidence merely sets us out on an adventure to find the true revelation of this theos. But there are many versions, most of which are wrong. How can we be sure which is correct? How can we be sure that our Christ is the true manifestation of God and salvation? What was Paul reasoning?
I think the best we can do for skeptics concerning proof, without attempting to take the place of the Holy Spirit, is reveal that this book called the Bible reveals a worldview that is not absurd, but rather stands firm in and of itself. And beyond that, the worldview that the Bible presents is the most concrete worldview and the best explanation for what is, thus explaining that it is logical. And this logic is certainly something skeptics are after. This of course requires that we explain the Bible topically. Topics such as the resurrection, the flood, creation, etc. And these are supported by Scripture, logically. But it is only natural to receive criticism, as with the separation between man and God came, as a consequence, so did the separation between man's mind and God's reality. For all men by nature seek their own, and justify it. We eat drink and be merry and do that which is right in our own eyes, and make that which is wrong to be right in our own eyes.
So how is a man won to Christ? Proof wil win the mind. And there is nothing wrong with winning a mind. In fact, the mind must be won before the heart is. But there is everything wrong if a person's mind is the only thing that is won. In all reality, if the mind is the only thing that is won, then the mind has not really been won. When someone understands TRUE Gospel, and chooses to believe it to be true, it will not remain in the mind. How? Because if the TRUE Gospel takes root in the mind, it is only because the Spirit of God is bringing them to it. Otherwise the Gospel that they receive in mind only is not complete. The Gospel is more than mental. It is practical. It is spiritual. We cannot, in our methods of convincing skeptics, expect for our "proof" to win any man to Christ. This is only a work of the Spirit. We can tear down cognitive barriers, but only the Spirit will tear down the barrier of sin between that man and God. We can reveal that someone's beliefs and way of life is un-justifiable, convincing men of sin. But only the Spirit will draw them to saving relational knowledge of Christ. That's what it's all about anyway. We can introduce a couple, and convince our friend that this girl exists, and has exceptional character that far surpasses any other, and that he needs to date her, but we cannot force a relationship upon them. It's up to them to enter into a relationship. And this relationship is far more than mental.

I don't claim to be an expert on agnosticism, but I still have a question in my mind that I've been pondering.
Why does the agnostic choose only to follow his agnosticism?
Here's why I wonder (taking into account that I don't know all the in's and out's of their beliefs): The agnostic believes we cannot know God. We cannot know what is true. There probably is truth, but we just don't have the capacity to know it.
So my question is, why does the agnostic choose to live with his agnosticism? If truth is out there somewhere, even though we can't really know it, at least if they believed in something they'd have better odds at being right than remaining in their chasm of uncertainty. Especially concerning matters of eternity. From their viewpoint, "What if there is a God, and a heaven and hell?" Well, since we can't know for sure what is true about these matters, I might as well not believe anything." Even though they know it is possible for the truth to be in something, regardless of our capacity to know it. So what makes them choose "nothing" rather than "something," seeing that "nothing" comes with the greatest risk (100%) for dying apart from truth? I'm not sure exactly. I would guess that it has something to do with the natural desire (or a "default state of being") to have freedom from the rules and restrictions that are popularly perceived to come with the territory of believing in "something," and to control their own lives. This could be enhanced by different experiences these people have endured in their lives. They disown religion because it didn't work for them before in certain circumstances. "I prayed for God to heal my mom, but she died instead. If there was a God, He wouldn't have let that happen." Thus begins the vicious cycle of logical justifications for disbelief in God, beginning with an occurance wherein things didn't happen in a way that the person thought they should have happened if God were the way they thought Him to be (and not to harp on this, but as a rebuttal, how can those who now claim to not be able to know truth claim that they know what God should look and act like? But the emotional damage has been done [not by the hand of God, but by a reaction that came from a false understanding of God mixed with a circumstantial trigger], and they are sold in their new belief) The possibilities are endless. All this to say, I wonder why agnostics sit on their beliefs when the greatest potential outcome is failure?

"Love is Blind." I truly believe this. But not in reference to love for others. Rather, in reference to love for one's self. When we love ourselves more than other people, we are partially or entirely blinded to our own sin and need for change. We are also blinded to the good things in those with whom we participate in relationships. We turn into unthankful people. We want the good life at little or no cost to ourselves. Work for other people without expectation for return turns into a miserable, half-hearted, boring chore. Let the reader know that expectation for return could be more than money or a returned favor. Sometimes we are satisfied with the return of appreciation, enhanced status (in their mind or just our own), self-fulfillment in some sort of personal merit system, or the knowledge that they feel that they owe us. Sometimes these things are enough to bring the self-lover enough satisfaction to make the work worth it. But when the self-lover has to work without receiving any sort of satisfaction in return, they are miserable. Like a child who has to do the dishes or take out the trash without getting an allowance or extra t.v. time. Only the older we get, our expectations generally get more complicated and obscure. But one thing that is not so complicated is that the person who rarely experiences thankfulness or appreciation for others can conclude that they love themselves more than they love others. Do you appreciate your wife/husband? And not just in your head. Does your heart sing because of their goodnes toward you? Does your heart sing because of God' goodness toward you (keep in mind that our relationships are not solely earthly. The most important relationship to keep in mind is a heavenly one)? Thankfulness and appreciation are not solely mental. The mind acknowledges the kindness, and the heart appreciates it. And heart-felt reactions DO come with emotions. It's the way we are made. Not a charismatic kind that makes us speak in tongues, but something that connects our hearts, or comes from that connection, in agape and phileo love. This is something that opens our eyes to God's intent for our relationships. And this is more fully known when we love others as we love ourselves. It is not known when we love ourselves more than we love others, because this love is blind and cannot fully appreciate the good things around us every day.

Why do churches seem so stale, even though there are plenty of activities and programs for the people to get involved in? Even in churches where the people seem to get along well and show loving, family-like qualities? Perhaps these two qualities deserve individual emphasis. But my pastor was preaching yesterday on the church's obligation to society. And it got me thinking.
First, one must understand the difference between "a church" and "the Church." "A church" is a unit that provides a place for fellowship and learning. This could or could not be a place where the true Gospel preached. "The Church" is the individual (singularly) or group of individuals (universally) that is/are born again into the family of God and walks or does not walk according to the statutes and passion of Christ. "A church" is the place that puts on programs. "The Church" is the person who has a relationship with Christ and is the spring within which the Gospel resides, and from which the Gospel pours out.
My point in writing this is not to bash churches world-wide. There are many churches that are vibrant and growing (spiritually and numerically). However there are many other churches that, dispite their many organized ministry opportunities, are falling apart. Why? I believe a reason for this (among potentially many) is that these churches neglect to make a practical distinction between "a church" and "the church." What would a "practical distinction" look like? When a distinction is missing, perhaps that pastor/congregation neglects to disciple the individuals, and relies on the programs to cultivate their walk in the Spirit. So, as a result, there are a lot of people working, but few people growing spiritually. So then the work that they are doing lacks the true passion, compassion, commitment, and/or concern of Christ. There may be a commitment to a work, but the commitment to the Word is minimal at best.
Churches ought to treat programs as additions to or avenues of evangelism and discipleship, rather than the sole means of them. What is important is that the people become like Christ...at the root of their very being. Not just act right and get involved in good things. God would have mercy without sacrifice. Perhaps this means that certain programs should be done away with in order for an atmosphere to develope that refocuses the people on Christ. God's desire is that we change within. And what happens in the churches should not be in order to build churches, but rather build up the Church...the body of Christ. And this begins within the people of the local churches. Where there is a program, there should be accompanied personal discipleship and accountability to the end that relationships with Christ are built up and fortified, and that the Glory of God through His Gospel is emphasized. It's easy to forget the goal in the midst of the work. A program is only as good as its people, and the people are only as good as their relationship with Christ.

I am convinced that selfishness is counter-productive.
When a person is selfish, they put so much effort into controlling their environment, and the people in it, that the satisfaction they receive from accomplishing their selfish goal is greatly suprassed by the pain, effort, and/or stress involved in trying to make things happen the way they want. Rather than trying self-control on for size, they rather attempt to control or manipuluate others (especially those closest to them) so that they can be comfortable. Rather than setting aside expectations and ambitions for the sake of relationship, they cling to those things, while making others miserable. They thereby are placed under more stress, as they end up trying to control numerous other individuals, as well as events, rather than just themselves and their own reactions to their environment. They leave themselves free to react however they please, and usually that includes bad attitudes, anger, complaining, lack of contentment, and other forms of negativity. This could all be avoided if they tried to show a little self-control and God-dependance rather than others-control and self or circumstance-dependance.

I've been thinking about the state of the world and its great need for change and for someone to make a difference. I want to be that person who makes a difference. I want to preach sermons and write books that present the REAL gospel and the REAL Christian grace-walk. I want to be involved in mass-change throughout the world. But each time I think like this, I am smitten inside.
Is it pessimistic to believe that no single person will change the world? To define terms - "person" does not include any "person" of the Godhead. "Change" means to turn everyone's (or at least the majority of people) heart and life to Christ.
I do not believe this is a pessimistic outlook. It could come from a pessimistic heart, and it could be seen as pessimistic, but i think there is a better way of looking at it.
What is God's will for the church? For one member to do all the work and stand out among the rest? No. Rather God's will is for it to work together as one complete, healthy body. Not to say that there are some gifts that do stand out. Some gifts are meant to not be seen. By nature, that is how they work best for the body of Christ. Also, there are parts that MUST be seen in order to work best. God made the church to work as a unit made up of many parts. However, for those who have those gifts that are meant to stand out, they must be cautious. With every strength, there is the potential for weekness. Those who stand out should give greater heed to be humble. It is natural for him to distract from Christ. It is natural for the hearers to give heed to him rather than the Word, almost setting him us as an idol to which one can look and find God and spirituality.
Also, to expect one's self to single-handedly change the world, or even to change a city, is to go against God's established order. Paul went from city to city making churches so that those churches could win the souls in that area (which obviously meant he had to win souls to Christ!). He had a huge influence for the Kingdom, however his actions lead toward the establishment of local bodies that would work together to grow together in Christ and win their society to Christ. And our efforts should not be sourced in individuality, but they should rather follow God's intention of colaboration and relationship within the family of Christ. This is not to say that one's passion for Christ should be quenched to the point that he does not act unless others are willing to as well, like some sort of "Groupon" method of ministry, especially in the case where one's local church does not share a similar passion. But rather, this is a plea to those that want to change to world to first spread their vivacious plague to nearby relatives in Christ. If the world will change, it will start in the Church. It is a great failure among me and my peers to think, like Elijah, that we alone truly work for God and need to take the responsibility upon ourselves to change the world with our "unique" and "revived" views, ministerial methods and ideology. Do we seek to be the next Spurgeon or Moody, standing out among the rest? Let us rather seek to take our place in the glorious Body of Christ, that we might truly glorify God and bring people to Him rather than to bring them to our ideas and proposed culture. Let us bring people to the person of Christ rather than a series of ethics and ideas.

As I follow Christ
Why preach unless you feel you have something good to say of God? Then, if you have something good to say of God, could you then not say, “Follow me as I follow Christ”? If you cannot say this, then you cannot preach. Preaching is providing something for listeners to follow. And we preach as we are lead of the Spirit. We preach for the edification of the people and the conversion of souls. If this is our aim, then as we preach, we can say “Follow me as I follow Christ.” I don’t think you have to “have it all together” in order to say thus. Paul sure didn’t think he deserved to preach. But he could still say “follow me as I follow Christ.” And I think only the weakest and humblest can speak thus. It does not say much about ourselves. It says much about our Christ. It does not mean we think much of our selves or our “spirituality.” Rather it means we think much of the power of Christ and the Spirit that He has left with us. And this is not a proud statement. The nature of this is founded in an adoration of God. “As I follow Christ” implies that the power within me is not my own. It implies that I know that I am still in need of Christ’s leadership, and that I know I haven’t got it all together. Thus, this statement cannot be made by those who “have it all together.” Truly, no man or woman does. Otherwise they cease to exist under grace.