“Shall I sin that grace may abound?”
This attitude seeks to bind God, or trap Him in His words. “Whoops! You promised to take me to heaven if I believed in Jesus. Guess you’re trapped in your words no matter what I do!”
Taking advantage of God’s grace is more than just “utilizing” a gift of God. It is an act of deceitful betrayal. Underneath the act is an attempt to catch God with His own promises. Finding a loophole, if you would, in the covenant contract. Did God not write sufficiently enough that we want more specific fine print? Does a real Christian NEED fine print?
So the real question is, does this attitude comes from someone who really entered into a relationship with Christ? If God did provide more fine print, would this person be any better? Or would he be a Pharisee? Full of religious works but empty of the Spirit?
I think it comes down to this: God did give the fine print, and oh it is fine. It is grace and love. It is a relationship with our Sovereign. Relationships include a bond between two people. And I’m talking about a relational bond – a bond of love. Not necessarily a bond of regulatory requirements. If a person has truly become a Christian, he has entered into this relationship. And don’t get me wrong, relationships grow. Our relationship with God is no different. We will grow from day one in our relationship with God into deeper love with God. But if this love-bond was never there, can you really say you are a Christian? If the details above match the details of your heart I would seriously consider this question. I am no judge, but I think this requires some serious, sober thought.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Titus 2
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
The grace of God, when it takes root in our life, teaches us to renounce ungodliness. In other words, it integrates the word "NO" into our lives as it pertains to our worldly passions. I think that counselors do well to try to help people find ways to change, however we cannot lose sight of the focus of this passage. And no, the focus is not a person saying "no" to sin. Saying "no" is a biproduct of the focus. The focus is the grace of God. And this, I believe, references Christ. Specifically according to the perspective that Christ came to establish God's people - the Church...the chosen people whom God's grace has reconciled, established a relationship, and called to holiness. God's grace teaches us the points in this passage. And this grace is personal. The Biblical counselor's first priority is the aid in a the counselee's relationship with God. The Spirit is real. He really does work in people. We don't have to take His place in order to make things work. But we can help people grow in grace. Sometimes this edification comes in the form of helping people establish disciplines in their life. But we cannot do so in a way that would replace grace with guilt. I.e., a person cannot discipline himself to the point where his religion is formed around the idea that if he touches the unclean thing God no longer accepts him. He IS reconciled. Therefore BE reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). "Be who you are" rather than "try to attain something that you should be." Spiritual disciplines are initiated by grace unto godliness, they do not attain grace by godliness. I believe it is easy and typical for counselors to blur the lines between these two thoughts. The old has gone, the new is here! Offer hope upon grace, rather than a burden upon burdens.
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
The grace of God, when it takes root in our life, teaches us to renounce ungodliness. In other words, it integrates the word "NO" into our lives as it pertains to our worldly passions. I think that counselors do well to try to help people find ways to change, however we cannot lose sight of the focus of this passage. And no, the focus is not a person saying "no" to sin. Saying "no" is a biproduct of the focus. The focus is the grace of God. And this, I believe, references Christ. Specifically according to the perspective that Christ came to establish God's people - the Church...the chosen people whom God's grace has reconciled, established a relationship, and called to holiness. God's grace teaches us the points in this passage. And this grace is personal. The Biblical counselor's first priority is the aid in a the counselee's relationship with God. The Spirit is real. He really does work in people. We don't have to take His place in order to make things work. But we can help people grow in grace. Sometimes this edification comes in the form of helping people establish disciplines in their life. But we cannot do so in a way that would replace grace with guilt. I.e., a person cannot discipline himself to the point where his religion is formed around the idea that if he touches the unclean thing God no longer accepts him. He IS reconciled. Therefore BE reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). "Be who you are" rather than "try to attain something that you should be." Spiritual disciplines are initiated by grace unto godliness, they do not attain grace by godliness. I believe it is easy and typical for counselors to blur the lines between these two thoughts. The old has gone, the new is here! Offer hope upon grace, rather than a burden upon burdens.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Charles Hawking said something that has become a cheer and a herald for atheists: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Though atheists treat this statement with as much respect and admiration as a puppy does his owner, it really does nothing to promote the cause of Atheism.
First, it does not provide any reason to reject God. It merely states (though emphatically within context) what theists already believe, that men are free to accept or reject God and His Son (i.e., the existence of a theos and the means by which Christians believe He relates to mankind). I don't think it is a stretch to say Christians actually believed the basic concept before it ever entered the thoughts of an atheist. It does not provide evidence, logical or physical, against theism. It does, however, claim there is no evidence for theism. But it does nothing to build actual evidence against theism.
Second, it does not provide support for Atheism. In fact, the exact same phrase could be used in reference to atheism from the theistic standpoint. Charles Hawking himself, when confronted with the need to provide evidence for atheism during a debate with William Lane Craig, could not provide evidence, but rather avoided the question with much stuttering. It was a perfect opportunity to muster evidence against God in a crowd of both believers and atheists, but he didn't.
Third, it implies, or should I say that the popularity of such a vague statement implies that those who honor the statement believe at some point that the absence of evidence for a theos provides evidence for absence of a theos. This is purely illogical. You cannot disprove the existence of something based on the fact that you haven't seen the proof.
Now, I do not say that the statement is illogical or wrong within the confines of it's limitations. However, I write this in response to the popularity that the statement has achieved among atheists. It is nothing but a fluff-packed pillow that an atheist can rest his weary head on after he has exerted hard labor out of his pre-determined heart. The statement does not flow out of someone seeking truth, but rather someone who has already decided.
First, it does not provide any reason to reject God. It merely states (though emphatically within context) what theists already believe, that men are free to accept or reject God and His Son (i.e., the existence of a theos and the means by which Christians believe He relates to mankind). I don't think it is a stretch to say Christians actually believed the basic concept before it ever entered the thoughts of an atheist. It does not provide evidence, logical or physical, against theism. It does, however, claim there is no evidence for theism. But it does nothing to build actual evidence against theism.
Second, it does not provide support for Atheism. In fact, the exact same phrase could be used in reference to atheism from the theistic standpoint. Charles Hawking himself, when confronted with the need to provide evidence for atheism during a debate with William Lane Craig, could not provide evidence, but rather avoided the question with much stuttering. It was a perfect opportunity to muster evidence against God in a crowd of both believers and atheists, but he didn't.
Third, it implies, or should I say that the popularity of such a vague statement implies that those who honor the statement believe at some point that the absence of evidence for a theos provides evidence for absence of a theos. This is purely illogical. You cannot disprove the existence of something based on the fact that you haven't seen the proof.
Now, I do not say that the statement is illogical or wrong within the confines of it's limitations. However, I write this in response to the popularity that the statement has achieved among atheists. It is nothing but a fluff-packed pillow that an atheist can rest his weary head on after he has exerted hard labor out of his pre-determined heart. The statement does not flow out of someone seeking truth, but rather someone who has already decided.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
We must be careful not to blur the lines between not compromising our positions and having sacrifice without mercy.
James 1:27 "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
Our religion (speaking as James would define it, rather than some program or whatever) is not based upon how well we hold to a belief, but rather how we love people. The last description is often a can of worms in this department, as many tend to throw in their ten cents concerning what being "unstained" looks like. Well, here's my tens cents. Take it for what it's worth (pun intended).
I would define "unstained" within its context. I would treat this as a neat segway to chapter 2, where James further describes how we should treat others, just like 1:27 was describing. I believe the context supports the notion that being unstained from the world refers to not live according natural tendencies to treat people differently based on status.
Anyway, all that to say, "unstained" is not quite so broad and subject to opinion as one might think.
Back to the point. Our religion is not based on how dogmatic we are about our doctrinal stances. Rather it is based on how we relate to those around us. It is founded in a relationship with Christ, and that reveals itself through our relationships with other people. When we choose to break relationships because of our inability to compromise, we defile our religion. We sacrifice, but neglect mercy. Now, there is cause for separation, but even that is to the end that heavenly and earthly relationships are restored. When a brother or sister in Christ chooses sin and/or to follow a false Gospel, then there is a reason to separate, all to the end that the wanderer might return to Christ and to the fellowship of believers.
When we become so "sold" on beliefs concerning issues that do not necessitate such a "sold" point of view in order to progress in our relationships with Christ and others, we set ourselves up for nullifying Phil. 1:27 and Eph. 4:12-13 with our lives and relationships. I will not give specific examples so as not to stir up disunity, however this is something that we ought to meditate on. Is my dogmatic stand concerning ___ more important than my relationship with someone? Is my or someone else's relationship with Christ really at stake if I or they do not believe ___? If not, then we should be willing to compromise.
James 1:27 "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
Our religion (speaking as James would define it, rather than some program or whatever) is not based upon how well we hold to a belief, but rather how we love people. The last description is often a can of worms in this department, as many tend to throw in their ten cents concerning what being "unstained" looks like. Well, here's my tens cents. Take it for what it's worth (pun intended).
I would define "unstained" within its context. I would treat this as a neat segway to chapter 2, where James further describes how we should treat others, just like 1:27 was describing. I believe the context supports the notion that being unstained from the world refers to not live according natural tendencies to treat people differently based on status.
Anyway, all that to say, "unstained" is not quite so broad and subject to opinion as one might think.
Back to the point. Our religion is not based on how dogmatic we are about our doctrinal stances. Rather it is based on how we relate to those around us. It is founded in a relationship with Christ, and that reveals itself through our relationships with other people. When we choose to break relationships because of our inability to compromise, we defile our religion. We sacrifice, but neglect mercy. Now, there is cause for separation, but even that is to the end that heavenly and earthly relationships are restored. When a brother or sister in Christ chooses sin and/or to follow a false Gospel, then there is a reason to separate, all to the end that the wanderer might return to Christ and to the fellowship of believers.
When we become so "sold" on beliefs concerning issues that do not necessitate such a "sold" point of view in order to progress in our relationships with Christ and others, we set ourselves up for nullifying Phil. 1:27 and Eph. 4:12-13 with our lives and relationships. I will not give specific examples so as not to stir up disunity, however this is something that we ought to meditate on. Is my dogmatic stand concerning ___ more important than my relationship with someone? Is my or someone else's relationship with Christ really at stake if I or they do not believe ___? If not, then we should be willing to compromise.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
I heard, in relation to counseling, that a person has to hit rock-bottom before he can turn his life around. I've been thinking about that quote. At first thought, I would like to think that it's not true. I mean, come on...I've changed without sulking into depression, feeling like there's nothing left where I'm at. But the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the statement. "Rock-Bottom" is basically another term for "realizing your current state, and honestly coming to grips with the truth." This person is fully exposed to HIMSELF. He has quit fooling himself and allowed himself to admit to his wrong and his need for radical change. I remember the man in Luke 18:13 - "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." This man was justified in the eyes of God. But who does that these days? Stand, looking to the ground, beating one's chest, praying aloud, grieving. I guess it would follow to ask how many people return from their prayers having their relationship with God mended? Not to say one must beat their chest to be heard. But this just shows a sincere and exposed heart. And exposure is not something people are comfortable with, no, not with their unseemly parts. And this is not to say we ought to live our lives with guilt. But this is to say that there ought to be sincerity and grief when confronted with those things about ourself that are not fit for a child of the King. I think the following quote from A.W. Tozer would be fitting:
"It is possible to go through life believing that we believe, while actually having no conviction more vital than a conventional creed inherited from our ancestors or picked up from. . .our social circle. If this creed requires that we admit our own depravity we do so and feel proud of our fidelity to the Christian faith. But from the way we love, praise and pamper ourselves it is plain enough that we do not consider ourselves worthy of damnation."
So, back to hitting rock-bottom: Must one hit rock-bottom to really change? If the change is going to be real, lasting, and sincere rather than just externally conforming, then I believe so. Not only is hitting rock-bottom a place where we realize our depravity, but it also, when joined with the hope Christ brings, gives us deep motivation to change, and purpose behind the actions that follow. If we haven't known conviction deeply within ourselves, then perhaps we aren't really convinced that it's all that bad. And when we DO change, it is as Tozer said - because we're led by our individual culture (which could be merely a comment from a fellow church member or a quote from the pulpit, or the fact that those around us act and dress a certain way or do certain things) rather than conviction in Christ. Our change is done in order to fit into a system of ethics that we're continually developing, rather than a relationship that we SHOULD be continually developing. Therefore we are not conformed into the image of Christ, but rather the image of those that surround us. If they look like Christ, then we may come to look like Christ to, but we are not like Christ. Weirdly enough, the only true way to grow in Christ's likeness is to hit rock-bottom first. It is there that we rid ourselves of the self-effort and self-sufficiency that plagues us, and we reach out to Christ from our miry clay. Then He will be the one who sets our feet on a rock.
"It is possible to go through life believing that we believe, while actually having no conviction more vital than a conventional creed inherited from our ancestors or picked up from. . .our social circle. If this creed requires that we admit our own depravity we do so and feel proud of our fidelity to the Christian faith. But from the way we love, praise and pamper ourselves it is plain enough that we do not consider ourselves worthy of damnation."
So, back to hitting rock-bottom: Must one hit rock-bottom to really change? If the change is going to be real, lasting, and sincere rather than just externally conforming, then I believe so. Not only is hitting rock-bottom a place where we realize our depravity, but it also, when joined with the hope Christ brings, gives us deep motivation to change, and purpose behind the actions that follow. If we haven't known conviction deeply within ourselves, then perhaps we aren't really convinced that it's all that bad. And when we DO change, it is as Tozer said - because we're led by our individual culture (which could be merely a comment from a fellow church member or a quote from the pulpit, or the fact that those around us act and dress a certain way or do certain things) rather than conviction in Christ. Our change is done in order to fit into a system of ethics that we're continually developing, rather than a relationship that we SHOULD be continually developing. Therefore we are not conformed into the image of Christ, but rather the image of those that surround us. If they look like Christ, then we may come to look like Christ to, but we are not like Christ. Weirdly enough, the only true way to grow in Christ's likeness is to hit rock-bottom first. It is there that we rid ourselves of the self-effort and self-sufficiency that plagues us, and we reach out to Christ from our miry clay. Then He will be the one who sets our feet on a rock.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
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.
"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.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)