There are four positions that people take in regards to their mind and their position on various positions. I will address the first three right away and introduce the fourth later. The first three are the Closed-Mind, the Narrow-Mind, and the Open-Mind. Each one has issues.
The Close-minded person is defined as:
" close-mind·ed (kl s m n d d, kl z -) or closed-mind·ed (kl zd -). adj. Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas."
There are many people who are closed minded. They do not consider any belief or opinion of others as viable. They refuse to consider a new idea. And they also refuse to allow other people to have other opinions if they go against their position. It is very unpopular to be close-minded today and there are many people who are VERY vocal against anyone who would dare speak against their position. If a Christian, speaking the truth of Scripture, says "X is a sin", there is an immediate response that calls said Christian "closed-minded", "bigoted", "hateful", etc. However, it is important to notice that by definition, "tolerance" requires being peaceful with those you disagree with. To be tolerant, you MUST be in disagreement. Are these people who scream at the Christian for speaking the truth being tolerant? No they are not. They themselves are being close-minded. They themselves are intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of those who do not agree with their position.
The Narrow-minded person is defined as:
"having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced"
There is not much more of a difference between a Close-Minded person and a Narrow-minded person. A Close-minded person refused to consider any opposing viewpoint, while a Narrow-minded person's worldview cannot see any other option. A close minded person has blinders on and a narrow-minded person has tunnel vision. Both are heavily unpopular today.
The Open-minded person is defined as:
"o·pen-mind·ed ( p n-m n d d). adj. Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. See Synonyms at broad-minded."
The Open-minded person is very popular today. Many people want us to be open-minded. And there is a lot of good in being open minded. When we are open-minded, we can consider what other people think, we are receptive of others, and we are deemed as tolerant. It is good to be open-minded....at first glance. But is the Open-mind the ideal picture it is described to be? In a word....NO. While the open-mind is receptive to many ideas, it is unable to actually settle on any one. And it cannot be tolerant because it does not agree on any position to disagree with another. And what is worse is that the open-mind cannot perform the ideals of the open-mind. Here is why with an example (and thanks to Eric Ludy's The BraveHearted Gospel for this specific example).
It was debated for some time if the earth was flat or round. And many people were close-minded or narrow-minded about the issue of whether the earth was flat or round. The flat-earthers were absolutely certain that if you sailed into the unknown, you would reach the edge of the seas and fall off the edge into oblivion. The round-earthers knew that no matter how far your sailed, you eventually would reach the other side of land. There were many open-minded people in this debate as well. The open-minded person was receptive to both sides of the issue. They saw validity in both sides. This sounds like a great place to be. They understood that both sides could be equally valid, they never warred with either side, and they could understand what the other side was thinking. But that was only when talking theory. When it came to practicality, the open-minded person would ALWAYS side with the flat-earther. Why? The round-earthers acted on faith. They knew their position was right and they would build ships intend to go sailing to demonstrate it. The flat-earther would never build a ship or go sailing into the unknown for fear of falling over the edge, even though they never could demonstrate it would happen. And the open-minded person, because of their consideration of the flat-earth position, would never go build a ship with a round-earther let alone go sailing with them. And it is found that these same types of open-minded people become the biggest challengers to the 'round-earthers' because said round-earthers were being "close-minded" and taking action based on their stance.
We see this all-around today. Where Christians are being told to be open-minded, but what they are being told to be open-minded to is all the evil and sin that the Bible says is SIN. All three positions are looking pretty bad. If we are close-minded, we cannot consider the opinions or the positions of the spiritual greats who are wiser and closer to God than we are. If we are narrow-minded, we cannot take the ideas of another Godly man and add them to our own. But if we are open-minded, we end up allowing ANYTHING to come in and be considered a viable option, even something that is inherently evil. Most people think there is no other option than these three, but there is one more out there: the Canon-Mind.
The Canon is not talking about a massive civil-war gun on wheels that was used to blast enemy soldiers and forts. It is talking about absolute truth found in God's word. The Canon-minded person is both close-minded and open-minded. It is close-minded to anything that would make a stand against God and his word or that would remotely contradict it. It refuses to consider a sinful lifestyle to be a valid and "okay" lifestyle. It refuses to consider a false teaching that does not line up with Scripture. It constantly compares what is being taught and said against Scripture and removes anything that would war against it. It gives no quarter to any idea, thought, action, or belief that would even cast a shadow on what God says in his word. But it is also open-minded...to anything that is in agreement to his word. It is open to consider the teachings of other preachers as long as it checks out with the word of God. It is open to looking at things from a different angle, as long as it comes from a Canon-based mind. It allow any TRUTH in and keep any LIE, even a partial or white lie, out. The Canon-mind is like a security guard standing at the door of the most important object you can conceive of: your soul. It allow anything that passes the test of the Canon that is Scripture, but it prevents the entry of anything that could possibly corrupt the soul. It stands firm, welcoming anything that points to God, and rejecting anything that might take any attention away from him. The Christian needs to be Canon-minded. Open to the truth, Closed to anything else. The Canon-Minded Christian will go out an build the ship to sail around the round earth. He will not sit there and debate about theories and possibilities. He will speak the truth and speak it with the power and authority in the name of Jesus Christ. He will not be swayed by the times or the cultures that tell him what he should or should not believe or act. He will stand on the rock and not be moved. And when the storms of life and the storms of the culture that does not want to hear or tolerate the words of TRUTH, the Canon-Minded Christian will always prevail, even if at the cost of his life.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Dealing with the Unbeliver
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I partake in several on-line discussion groups often dealing with issues of Creation Vs Evolution. And in these discussions I meet quite a variety of people. And among these people are those who believe as I do. I believe firmly that God created the heavens and the earth approximately 6000 years ago in six days as the Bible describes in Genesis 1. I believe with this background in history, Jesus came to pay the penalty for man's sin 2000 years ago and that he rose from the dead. Now I want to make clear that I set my beliefs based on what the Bible says, that is, I seek that my beliefs are determined by Scripture and I seek not to look at Scripture based on what I bring to it. What I make of Scripture must be malleable to what Scripture says. That being said, while many do agree with me on the position of Scripture, there are several groups of people that I deal with in terms of how they agree or disagree with me and what I believe is behind these positions.
The first group is those who do accept everything I believe, but actually have a greater understand of Scripture than I do. With these people, I still must check out what they say with Scripture but if it checks out I should be willing to adjust my position to be closer to what Scripture says. But if it does not check out with Scripture, I need to dismiss it. I understand that I don't have all the answers and I understand that there are others who have a deeper and closer walk with God than I do. But each of these people are fallible just as I am, so while I do need to take input from others, especially those older and wise than I, I still have a standard for which to judge everything to see if their ideas and what they have learned is legit.
Another group is those who also accept everything I believe but are not yet at the level I am at. This is not meant to be an arrogant statement. But I have been a Christian and a missionary for 22 years and there are some people that are not at the place I have arrived yet. How I must respond to that is to build them up, encourage them, strengthen them, but at the same time, be very cautious in how to do that. I too much check what I say with Scripture. I take Jesus' warning to not lead a child astray very seriously. And the same applies to a child believer.
But there are several groups of those who don't believe in the Bible and who have not been "born-again" that I engage with. One group includes those who think they are Christians but have never made that choice to make Jesus be the Lord and Ruler of their lives. And there are several flavors of this as well. Another group are those that do make any claim towards Christianity but are open to hear about it. The last one are primary scoffers and mockers. They not only do not make any claims towards Christianity they want nothing to do with Christianity and yet they tend to gravitate towards Christian and Creation themed groups. And I am going to address these groups.
The first one are Christians who have not made the decision to follow Christ, but think they are. This comes in two primary flavors. The first is those who claim Christianity and have the fertile soil (Matthew 13) to where the seeds of God's Gospel can sprout and grow. These people are often very close to making that decision to follow Christ. The other flavor is a dangerous group. These are the ones who claim Christianity but actually do not want to follow Christ, or anyone else to follow Christ. We call them 'wolves in sheep's clothing' or worse 'wolves in shepherd's clothing'. Because of my standard for truth, I know how to spot these false teachers and false believers pretty quickly. When you know the truth, any fake or pretender is easy to spot because a fake or pretender cannot agree with the solid truth. It is a very common military tactic to send in double-agents, spies who pretend to be one thing when they are really plants from the enemy. The same is true with Satan. He will send spies into our midst for the purpose of deception of the believers, for intel, or for sabotage. We wary of these folks.
There is another group that are non-believers who do not claim to be associated with Christianity but they have open ears and hearts to listen to what Christianity has to say. These are the people who Jesus said "He who has ears let him hear." But these people may or may not have fertile soil. They may hear the word and the world will just take it away (the path). They might listen for a while but when the pressure turns up they flake away (rocky soil). And then there are others who hear the word and they want to receive it but then life gets in the way and chokes it out (the thorns). To deal with these people, we must first recognize which type of soil they are. Some need plowing, some need weeding, and some need scarecrows to keep the birds away. But we must be patient and work with them and keep pressing to keep the thieves away. Some of these people we can work with like Nicodemus because they want to know the truth.
Then we have the scoffers. They want nothing to do with Christianity and hate everything that represents Christ. But it is very interesting how these people gravitate towards people and places where the truth is heard. One reason for this is to mock and to ridicule. I do believe these many of these people are unwitting victims of Satan and his minion sent in to mock what they do not know. Many do not know what they are doing and we must take the attitude of Christ on the cross: "Father, forgive them they know not what they do." But worse are those who are aware of what they are doing. These are the ones that have been told the truth, they know it is the truth, and they still refuse to have anything to do with it. Here we must not sink to the folly of these Biblically defined fools, which is those who reject reason and truth and living by one's own standards instead of God's. Here must address a fool in accordance to his folly, that is expose it for what it is to make an example not just for the fool but for those watching lest they follow in the fool's footsteps. But we must also not waste our time with such people. We must be cautious to not toss pearls before the swine. When it is time that no one can learn from such a person including the audience, it is time to move on. Do not discuss with these scoffers alone. Only deal with them in public.
This is a work in progress and I am still working out what is going on behind the scenes with these groups and really what is the best way to respond to said people. But we must remember that as Christians, we live in enemy territory and Satan does not let his prize possessions (the lost) go without a fight. Don't let him be the one on the offense all the time.
The first group is those who do accept everything I believe, but actually have a greater understand of Scripture than I do. With these people, I still must check out what they say with Scripture but if it checks out I should be willing to adjust my position to be closer to what Scripture says. But if it does not check out with Scripture, I need to dismiss it. I understand that I don't have all the answers and I understand that there are others who have a deeper and closer walk with God than I do. But each of these people are fallible just as I am, so while I do need to take input from others, especially those older and wise than I, I still have a standard for which to judge everything to see if their ideas and what they have learned is legit.
Another group is those who also accept everything I believe but are not yet at the level I am at. This is not meant to be an arrogant statement. But I have been a Christian and a missionary for 22 years and there are some people that are not at the place I have arrived yet. How I must respond to that is to build them up, encourage them, strengthen them, but at the same time, be very cautious in how to do that. I too much check what I say with Scripture. I take Jesus' warning to not lead a child astray very seriously. And the same applies to a child believer.
But there are several groups of those who don't believe in the Bible and who have not been "born-again" that I engage with. One group includes those who think they are Christians but have never made that choice to make Jesus be the Lord and Ruler of their lives. And there are several flavors of this as well. Another group are those that do make any claim towards Christianity but are open to hear about it. The last one are primary scoffers and mockers. They not only do not make any claims towards Christianity they want nothing to do with Christianity and yet they tend to gravitate towards Christian and Creation themed groups. And I am going to address these groups.
The first one are Christians who have not made the decision to follow Christ, but think they are. This comes in two primary flavors. The first is those who claim Christianity and have the fertile soil (Matthew 13) to where the seeds of God's Gospel can sprout and grow. These people are often very close to making that decision to follow Christ. The other flavor is a dangerous group. These are the ones who claim Christianity but actually do not want to follow Christ, or anyone else to follow Christ. We call them 'wolves in sheep's clothing' or worse 'wolves in shepherd's clothing'. Because of my standard for truth, I know how to spot these false teachers and false believers pretty quickly. When you know the truth, any fake or pretender is easy to spot because a fake or pretender cannot agree with the solid truth. It is a very common military tactic to send in double-agents, spies who pretend to be one thing when they are really plants from the enemy. The same is true with Satan. He will send spies into our midst for the purpose of deception of the believers, for intel, or for sabotage. We wary of these folks.
There is another group that are non-believers who do not claim to be associated with Christianity but they have open ears and hearts to listen to what Christianity has to say. These are the people who Jesus said "He who has ears let him hear." But these people may or may not have fertile soil. They may hear the word and the world will just take it away (the path). They might listen for a while but when the pressure turns up they flake away (rocky soil). And then there are others who hear the word and they want to receive it but then life gets in the way and chokes it out (the thorns). To deal with these people, we must first recognize which type of soil they are. Some need plowing, some need weeding, and some need scarecrows to keep the birds away. But we must be patient and work with them and keep pressing to keep the thieves away. Some of these people we can work with like Nicodemus because they want to know the truth.
Then we have the scoffers. They want nothing to do with Christianity and hate everything that represents Christ. But it is very interesting how these people gravitate towards people and places where the truth is heard. One reason for this is to mock and to ridicule. I do believe these many of these people are unwitting victims of Satan and his minion sent in to mock what they do not know. Many do not know what they are doing and we must take the attitude of Christ on the cross: "Father, forgive them they know not what they do." But worse are those who are aware of what they are doing. These are the ones that have been told the truth, they know it is the truth, and they still refuse to have anything to do with it. Here we must not sink to the folly of these Biblically defined fools, which is those who reject reason and truth and living by one's own standards instead of God's. Here must address a fool in accordance to his folly, that is expose it for what it is to make an example not just for the fool but for those watching lest they follow in the fool's footsteps. But we must also not waste our time with such people. We must be cautious to not toss pearls before the swine. When it is time that no one can learn from such a person including the audience, it is time to move on. Do not discuss with these scoffers alone. Only deal with them in public.
This is a work in progress and I am still working out what is going on behind the scenes with these groups and really what is the best way to respond to said people. But we must remember that as Christians, we live in enemy territory and Satan does not let his prize possessions (the lost) go without a fight. Don't let him be the one on the offense all the time.
Friday, August 16, 2013
"The BraveHearted Gospel": A Review.
I am not a big fan of reading non-fiction books. I'll just be upfront about that. Why? Many of the non-fiction books I have read tend to carry a weakened down version of the Gospel and Christianity. Many of them about how to improve your spiritual and physical situation and are about you. But too many people are all about feeding self, physically and spiritually, and I've been guilty of that too. But as my blog posts the last couple months should have revealed by now, I've been seeking and striving to go to that next level in my walk with Jesus Christ and I feel like I have been crossing not mere one threshold but several. And one of the tools God has used to take me through this journey is the pastor of the Ellerslie Mission Society in Colorado, Eric Ludy. I have read two of his books which, to be honest, are the first non-fiction books I have read in a long time. The first one is "Wrestling Prayer" which is about taking the model of David's Mighty Men and using the courage they showed and apply it to our walk. The other, I just finished today, is "The Bravehearted Gospel".
The Bravehearted Gospel like Wrestling Prayer reads differently than any other non-fiction book I have read. It is not the author merely sharing his thoughts or trying to "preach" to his readers. These books read like a coffee-shop conversation between the reader and Eric Ludy. He reads like he talks, out of his heart, out of passion for the Lord AND for the reader to grasp that passion, and he reads like one with authority that generally speaking is greatly lacking in American culture today. Ludy is very quick to mention that merely writing the book makes him uncomfortable and I can easily picture him fighting God about trying to get out of writing it.
The message that The Bravehearted Gospel brings is very tough to read for the average Christian today. Why? Because this book is about getting off the couch or pew and getting into the situations that are not comfortable. Too many Christians in America in particular have gotten too comfortable in life. We life in Suburbia and while we are more than willing to feed the hungry or clothe the naked, we purpose to live in an area and travel in circles where we will be hard pressed to come across said people. And I'm guilty of this too, and that's with growing up on the mission field. I've been to the poorest of the poorest neighborhoods of Juarez, Mexico where families of 12 are living in a one-bedroom sized shack made of pallet and insulated with a few sparse blankets from the heat, cold, wind, and dirt. And I've always known that very night I would be able to sleep in my own bed. Even though I've seen it and I've reached out with groups, I've always had that safety blanket of a place to retreat. Now I am not saying I must sell absolutely everything I have and go live with the homeless, not unless God specifically has told me to do that. But my heart was not to reach out to the people as it should be. I loved going into Mexico with the outreach teams, but I loved going in with the team, not necessarily going to preach the Gospel, even though I did do that. My heart was not truly where it needed to be. This book has been part of the awakening that God has been taking me through to get me to take that extra step of faith and let Jesus save these people through me.
The Bravehearted Gospel has been telling me what I have known for a while but could not put a finger onto it. The Christian church in America is mostly devoid of power. I see a church that feeds its congregation very well but does very little other than send money and prayers to the needy. Now money and prayer are not bad things to send, but people are hiding behind that saying "If I can give my money for these missions, then I don't have to go myself." And this is the problem. The Church does not want to go out. They do not want to go where it is uncomfortable. They don't want speak the truth even if it is going to be unpopular. They don't want to act on their faith. They want to talk about it and decorate it and show the fluffy, fun stuff. But they don't want anything to do with the nitty-gritty. They don't want to deal with the fact that God is a Just and Jealous God. They lack the will and drive to make a stand because it is better to be loving and embracing rather than say something that might offend someone. They love debate and discussion. They love to consider all the options and all the possible interpretations. But not only do they never choose a side because they are keeping their options open, they are embracing worldviews that are in deliberate violation of God's Word as a viable option to consider. And they lack the backbone to put the foot down, lay down the law, and guard the door to their own hearts, the hearts of their families, the hearts of the church, etc. The Bravehearted Gospel is a call to regain that backbone that is missing in American Christianity. It is a call that what many of us see in the Church and in those who claim to follow Christ is not what Christ is about. We want to see the love and mercy of Christ. We want to hear the "Your sins are forgiven." from Christ. But we don't want to see the call to live a righteous live. We don't want to hear the "be Holy as he is Holy". We don't want to hear the "Go and sin no more." This book is about the "be Holy as he is Holy". It is about the drive to "Go and sin no more." But it does so knowing that the love and the "Your sins are forgiven" must remain with our faith and our walk. It is about living the true Christian walk as Jesus walked the Christian walk. It is about going out fearlessly, not caring what the world thinks about you, but caring only about what God thinks. It is about doing the impossible. And it also reveals that this life of the Bravehearted Gospel is truly impossible to do under man's abilities. It cannot be done. It can only be done by Jesus Christ. But as a Christian, we are the vessels in which Jesus DOES live it out. Jesus lives in us and he wants to live the life he wants to life in us and through us. He can do it and because he can do it, we can do it because he is doing it with us, in us, and through us. And it is this Bravehearted Journey that turns the world upside down.
If you read Hebrews 11, you will see this Bravehearted Gospel carried out by the Heroes of Faith. You will see the least of the least, the weak, the unskilled, the timid, the lost, the pathetic, all who were nobodies until God showed up and did the impossible through them. David's Mighty Men did impossible things because they had what the Bravehearted Gospel is talking about. I know my walk has been little more than just on cruise control. I have been lacking what the Bravehearted Gospel will drive us to do. I've known something has been lacking but I've not been able to put a name to it until now. And it is a call for me rise up and meet what this book is trying to describe. This book describes what the Christian life should entail. This book describes what opposition a person who is truly seeking to live and walk the True Christian life will face. If you try to live out what this book describes, it will make you unpopular with many who you think to be your friends because it will convict them and even the Christians friends may become jealous because this book will draw you to take your faith to a level it has never been before. This book is not the only piece of the puzzle that God has been working in my heart but it has put in the spotlights the problems I have seen both in the church and in my own life that has kept me from living a Bravehearted life. No more. I want to have that Bravehearted life. I want to life a life that would be worthy of being included in the list of David's Mighty Men or Hebrews 11. Not for my own glory, because I know that anything I do in the direction of this Bravehearted life must be for King and HIS Country only and none for me. This life is about dying to self. It is about going where you would not go if God did not call you there. It is about saying what you would not say if God did not tell you to say it. It is about doing what you would not do if God did not tell you to do it. I don't just want to say "Lord, I am available. Send me." I want to say, "Lord, tell me what to do. I will do it, no matter the cost and no matter the odds." And such a statement, when the rubber meets the road is much harder to swallow. I seek to get to that point. And I am heading there. I won't say if I am there yet or not, but I know I am heading there. Who is with me?
The Bravehearted Gospel like Wrestling Prayer reads differently than any other non-fiction book I have read. It is not the author merely sharing his thoughts or trying to "preach" to his readers. These books read like a coffee-shop conversation between the reader and Eric Ludy. He reads like he talks, out of his heart, out of passion for the Lord AND for the reader to grasp that passion, and he reads like one with authority that generally speaking is greatly lacking in American culture today. Ludy is very quick to mention that merely writing the book makes him uncomfortable and I can easily picture him fighting God about trying to get out of writing it.
The message that The Bravehearted Gospel brings is very tough to read for the average Christian today. Why? Because this book is about getting off the couch or pew and getting into the situations that are not comfortable. Too many Christians in America in particular have gotten too comfortable in life. We life in Suburbia and while we are more than willing to feed the hungry or clothe the naked, we purpose to live in an area and travel in circles where we will be hard pressed to come across said people. And I'm guilty of this too, and that's with growing up on the mission field. I've been to the poorest of the poorest neighborhoods of Juarez, Mexico where families of 12 are living in a one-bedroom sized shack made of pallet and insulated with a few sparse blankets from the heat, cold, wind, and dirt. And I've always known that very night I would be able to sleep in my own bed. Even though I've seen it and I've reached out with groups, I've always had that safety blanket of a place to retreat. Now I am not saying I must sell absolutely everything I have and go live with the homeless, not unless God specifically has told me to do that. But my heart was not to reach out to the people as it should be. I loved going into Mexico with the outreach teams, but I loved going in with the team, not necessarily going to preach the Gospel, even though I did do that. My heart was not truly where it needed to be. This book has been part of the awakening that God has been taking me through to get me to take that extra step of faith and let Jesus save these people through me.
The Bravehearted Gospel has been telling me what I have known for a while but could not put a finger onto it. The Christian church in America is mostly devoid of power. I see a church that feeds its congregation very well but does very little other than send money and prayers to the needy. Now money and prayer are not bad things to send, but people are hiding behind that saying "If I can give my money for these missions, then I don't have to go myself." And this is the problem. The Church does not want to go out. They do not want to go where it is uncomfortable. They don't want speak the truth even if it is going to be unpopular. They don't want to act on their faith. They want to talk about it and decorate it and show the fluffy, fun stuff. But they don't want anything to do with the nitty-gritty. They don't want to deal with the fact that God is a Just and Jealous God. They lack the will and drive to make a stand because it is better to be loving and embracing rather than say something that might offend someone. They love debate and discussion. They love to consider all the options and all the possible interpretations. But not only do they never choose a side because they are keeping their options open, they are embracing worldviews that are in deliberate violation of God's Word as a viable option to consider. And they lack the backbone to put the foot down, lay down the law, and guard the door to their own hearts, the hearts of their families, the hearts of the church, etc. The Bravehearted Gospel is a call to regain that backbone that is missing in American Christianity. It is a call that what many of us see in the Church and in those who claim to follow Christ is not what Christ is about. We want to see the love and mercy of Christ. We want to hear the "Your sins are forgiven." from Christ. But we don't want to see the call to live a righteous live. We don't want to hear the "be Holy as he is Holy". We don't want to hear the "Go and sin no more." This book is about the "be Holy as he is Holy". It is about the drive to "Go and sin no more." But it does so knowing that the love and the "Your sins are forgiven" must remain with our faith and our walk. It is about living the true Christian walk as Jesus walked the Christian walk. It is about going out fearlessly, not caring what the world thinks about you, but caring only about what God thinks. It is about doing the impossible. And it also reveals that this life of the Bravehearted Gospel is truly impossible to do under man's abilities. It cannot be done. It can only be done by Jesus Christ. But as a Christian, we are the vessels in which Jesus DOES live it out. Jesus lives in us and he wants to live the life he wants to life in us and through us. He can do it and because he can do it, we can do it because he is doing it with us, in us, and through us. And it is this Bravehearted Journey that turns the world upside down.
If you read Hebrews 11, you will see this Bravehearted Gospel carried out by the Heroes of Faith. You will see the least of the least, the weak, the unskilled, the timid, the lost, the pathetic, all who were nobodies until God showed up and did the impossible through them. David's Mighty Men did impossible things because they had what the Bravehearted Gospel is talking about. I know my walk has been little more than just on cruise control. I have been lacking what the Bravehearted Gospel will drive us to do. I've known something has been lacking but I've not been able to put a name to it until now. And it is a call for me rise up and meet what this book is trying to describe. This book describes what the Christian life should entail. This book describes what opposition a person who is truly seeking to live and walk the True Christian life will face. If you try to live out what this book describes, it will make you unpopular with many who you think to be your friends because it will convict them and even the Christians friends may become jealous because this book will draw you to take your faith to a level it has never been before. This book is not the only piece of the puzzle that God has been working in my heart but it has put in the spotlights the problems I have seen both in the church and in my own life that has kept me from living a Bravehearted life. No more. I want to have that Bravehearted life. I want to life a life that would be worthy of being included in the list of David's Mighty Men or Hebrews 11. Not for my own glory, because I know that anything I do in the direction of this Bravehearted life must be for King and HIS Country only and none for me. This life is about dying to self. It is about going where you would not go if God did not call you there. It is about saying what you would not say if God did not tell you to say it. It is about doing what you would not do if God did not tell you to do it. I don't just want to say "Lord, I am available. Send me." I want to say, "Lord, tell me what to do. I will do it, no matter the cost and no matter the odds." And such a statement, when the rubber meets the road is much harder to swallow. I seek to get to that point. And I am heading there. I won't say if I am there yet or not, but I know I am heading there. Who is with me?
Friday, August 9, 2013
Evolution Vs. God Critique
Ray Comfort of know fame from his evangelism training "The Way of the Master" released a video to the public this week titled "Evolution Vs God", which addresses one of the key issues of the debate: Faith. It is well know that the Bible teaches about Faith and that without faith it is impossible to please God. But it is also frequently cited that Evolution does not require faith and it just has evidence. So this is what this video is supposed to address. I will post a link to the video at the bottom of this post.
First off, before I go into a critique about this video, I must make clear what faith is. Most evolutionists define faith as being blind. As believing without knowing or without evidence. But no religion in the world to my knowledge defines faith as this. They define faith as a true trust that has evidence. Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is the confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." So when I analyze this video, this is the definition of faith that is going to be used. And here we go.
The video opens up at the 15 second mark with a quote that says "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence." ~Richard Dawkins. It is clear from the get-go that Dawkins does not know what faith is, using a definition that only atheists us. And little does he know exactly how he carries out his own quote.
At the 40 second mark, PZ Meyers opens up by saying he is an atheist because "There is no God." How does he know this? To know there is no God requires God-like knowledge. But let's move on.
Comfort then interviews a variety of people asking about if they believed in Evolution, if they are an atheist, when they started believing in evolution. Many answers included "Yes, I am an atheist.", "I believe it is science." "I believe in facts". Most seem like straight forward answers.
At the 3:00 mark, Comfort asks for testable or observable evidence. Many answers include "over millions of years". One comment at the 3:30 mark says "Evolution is not testable over time." (she does mention the fossil record as being traceable). At 3:44, Comfort puts a Dawkins quote saying "We are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that is too slow, too small a scale to see evolution going on." This is followed by a Darwin quote "We see nothing of these slow ages in progress until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages." Now this is often prime material for a quote-mine claim by evolutionists, but what could they mean besides exactly what they said? This is not forming an argument that they intend to directly answer.
When Comfort asks the students in his query about observable evidence (4:00-6:30 ish), none of them could provide any. One student even says "we haven't found it yet." What is also interesting is that neither could the professors provide the observable evidence. PZ Meyers points to a couple fossils that supposedly linked carnivores (namely cats and dogs) 60 million years ago but is that observable? Students later reveal they have trust or faith in what the 'experts' or textbooks say. This lines up with the Biblical definition of faith. PZ Meyers at the 6:15 mark references the stickleback fish as having evolved into various types of stickleback fish as his off-the-top-of-his-head, best evidence of observable Darwinian Evolution. And at 6:27 we have the already now famous line "Humans are fish." from PZ Meyers.
At the 7:00 minute mark, a professor (Craig Stanford) was asked for one evidence for evolution showing the changes of kinds that is not mere variation or speciation, and Stanford could not pull one out of the thousands he said he had. (He may have eventually mentioned one, but as I type this up while watching, he hadn't yet). Lenski's experiment was cited by both Stanford and Meyers. But the bacteria are still bacteria and not an example of the diversification of all life. Comfort pins them down on this point and none of the professors interviewed could answer that. Stanford in particular got a bit upset, telling Comfort he was asking a question that was not being asked. At the 9:20 mark (ish) a student after repeatedly using the word "believe" eventually says that Evolution could be a belief.
Comfort continues to repeat the question "Is there any observable evidence for the Darwinian Evolution for a "change in kind"?" And he specifically referenced Darwin's reference to kinds, not the Biblical reference. He often clarifies it so the person asked does not think speciation or adaptation but the only evidence provided for are the latter. Speciation or adaptation. No changes between something like cats and dogs. Students were dead silent on the issue. They could not think of a single example. (11:00-13:45). Comfort tells one student who claimed to trust the biology experts that they could not come up with one example. Many students really started thinking.
At 13:50, Comfort starts asking about Intelligent Design and asking if a rose could be made from nothing, or if it could be made at all. And he asks if the most brilliant people cannot produce anything from nothing, how could the universe not be intelligently designed. I'm not entirely convinced by this, because Evolution assumes naturalism which has no intelligence involved. I felt he still left that window being an option.
At the 16:30 mark, Comfort talks about Vestigial organs. The appendix and coccyx were two common examples given. Comfort then explains what the functions of these two parts perform.
At 17:15, Comfort asks about any famous atheists. One mentioned Isaac Newton who was well-known for his Christian faith. Comfort then lists numerous well known people commonly cited as atheists but he then reveals that they actually were not atheists. Even Einstein attacked harshly against those who cited him for being an atheists.
At 21:00, Comfort addresses morality. Is Rape wrong? He asks if your neighbor and your dog were drowning, and you could only save one, who would you save? I understand the purpose of this question. The purpose of this question "what is more valuable? A human life or an animal life?" What I saw from the responses who said their dog more had to do with they knew their dog more than they knew their neighbor. I think this could be an follow-up question that Comfort could have addressed. He addressed it as "survival of the fittest", which is a good follow-up because it forces people to think about how morality and survival of the fittest do have a role to play. I think as an in-between question, he could have addressed how well they know the dog vs the neighbor and then tweaked the question if it was between the dog and the person's best friend.
At 24:00, Comfort goes "The Way of the Master". "Are you a good person?" "Have you lied? Stolen?" etc.
At 27:00, Comfort starts talking about how he knows everyone knows there is a creator. While that is all-true, I'm not sure that is the best way to go. He did a great job at revealing short-comings and how we will face a Judge. But I would recommended him taking that stance and starting with "this is what I believe..." and reference in a 30-second to 1-minute run through about Creation, sin, and the need for a Savior. I am concerned that his move here might shut down a train of thought to consider God's Word that was smoothly going up to here. I love how he tells them they are designed intelligently. And by the 30:00 mark, no one had expressed acceptance, they had definitely considered it to be possible.
Comfort asks if you could be wrong about God (32:00) and was asked back if he could be wrong about God. Comfort responded no, he could not be wrong about God. The response was he was close-minded. But he makes a very good response. He tells he could not be wrong about God's existence in the same way this professor could not be wrong about his wife's existence. That is a good analogy to use. It was a good answer.
Overall, what I was very impressed with is that there was only one trick question Comfort asked and that was referencing how do you spell "Shop" followed by what do you do at a green light? His questions were not fancy worded (and I have seen some creationists use complex questions that can be confusing). They were straight forward. He clarified any question that might be confusing. His questions were very easy to follow for where he was going with a clear direction of progression and he got people to really think. It was very obvious from the answers, especially by the students, that they had never thought about it like they thought they had. I do like how he presented the Gospel except for the one point I mentioned above. It truly is pointless for a creationist to get people to question evolution if not for the purpose of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I suspect some of those students re-evaluated their lives after this and if not already, I suspect some of them will shortly accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Overall, good job Ray Comfort. You still have some areas to tweak but you are doing a great work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
First off, before I go into a critique about this video, I must make clear what faith is. Most evolutionists define faith as being blind. As believing without knowing or without evidence. But no religion in the world to my knowledge defines faith as this. They define faith as a true trust that has evidence. Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is the confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." So when I analyze this video, this is the definition of faith that is going to be used. And here we go.
The video opens up at the 15 second mark with a quote that says "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence." ~Richard Dawkins. It is clear from the get-go that Dawkins does not know what faith is, using a definition that only atheists us. And little does he know exactly how he carries out his own quote.
At the 40 second mark, PZ Meyers opens up by saying he is an atheist because "There is no God." How does he know this? To know there is no God requires God-like knowledge. But let's move on.
Comfort then interviews a variety of people asking about if they believed in Evolution, if they are an atheist, when they started believing in evolution. Many answers included "Yes, I am an atheist.", "I believe it is science." "I believe in facts". Most seem like straight forward answers.
At the 3:00 mark, Comfort asks for testable or observable evidence. Many answers include "over millions of years". One comment at the 3:30 mark says "Evolution is not testable over time." (she does mention the fossil record as being traceable). At 3:44, Comfort puts a Dawkins quote saying "We are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that is too slow, too small a scale to see evolution going on." This is followed by a Darwin quote "We see nothing of these slow ages in progress until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages." Now this is often prime material for a quote-mine claim by evolutionists, but what could they mean besides exactly what they said? This is not forming an argument that they intend to directly answer.
When Comfort asks the students in his query about observable evidence (4:00-6:30 ish), none of them could provide any. One student even says "we haven't found it yet." What is also interesting is that neither could the professors provide the observable evidence. PZ Meyers points to a couple fossils that supposedly linked carnivores (namely cats and dogs) 60 million years ago but is that observable? Students later reveal they have trust or faith in what the 'experts' or textbooks say. This lines up with the Biblical definition of faith. PZ Meyers at the 6:15 mark references the stickleback fish as having evolved into various types of stickleback fish as his off-the-top-of-his-head, best evidence of observable Darwinian Evolution. And at 6:27 we have the already now famous line "Humans are fish." from PZ Meyers.
At the 7:00 minute mark, a professor (Craig Stanford) was asked for one evidence for evolution showing the changes of kinds that is not mere variation or speciation, and Stanford could not pull one out of the thousands he said he had. (He may have eventually mentioned one, but as I type this up while watching, he hadn't yet). Lenski's experiment was cited by both Stanford and Meyers. But the bacteria are still bacteria and not an example of the diversification of all life. Comfort pins them down on this point and none of the professors interviewed could answer that. Stanford in particular got a bit upset, telling Comfort he was asking a question that was not being asked. At the 9:20 mark (ish) a student after repeatedly using the word "believe" eventually says that Evolution could be a belief.
Comfort continues to repeat the question "Is there any observable evidence for the Darwinian Evolution for a "change in kind"?" And he specifically referenced Darwin's reference to kinds, not the Biblical reference. He often clarifies it so the person asked does not think speciation or adaptation but the only evidence provided for are the latter. Speciation or adaptation. No changes between something like cats and dogs. Students were dead silent on the issue. They could not think of a single example. (11:00-13:45). Comfort tells one student who claimed to trust the biology experts that they could not come up with one example. Many students really started thinking.
At 13:50, Comfort starts asking about Intelligent Design and asking if a rose could be made from nothing, or if it could be made at all. And he asks if the most brilliant people cannot produce anything from nothing, how could the universe not be intelligently designed. I'm not entirely convinced by this, because Evolution assumes naturalism which has no intelligence involved. I felt he still left that window being an option.
At the 16:30 mark, Comfort talks about Vestigial organs. The appendix and coccyx were two common examples given. Comfort then explains what the functions of these two parts perform.
At 17:15, Comfort asks about any famous atheists. One mentioned Isaac Newton who was well-known for his Christian faith. Comfort then lists numerous well known people commonly cited as atheists but he then reveals that they actually were not atheists. Even Einstein attacked harshly against those who cited him for being an atheists.
At 21:00, Comfort addresses morality. Is Rape wrong? He asks if your neighbor and your dog were drowning, and you could only save one, who would you save? I understand the purpose of this question. The purpose of this question "what is more valuable? A human life or an animal life?" What I saw from the responses who said their dog more had to do with they knew their dog more than they knew their neighbor. I think this could be an follow-up question that Comfort could have addressed. He addressed it as "survival of the fittest", which is a good follow-up because it forces people to think about how morality and survival of the fittest do have a role to play. I think as an in-between question, he could have addressed how well they know the dog vs the neighbor and then tweaked the question if it was between the dog and the person's best friend.
At 24:00, Comfort goes "The Way of the Master". "Are you a good person?" "Have you lied? Stolen?" etc.
At 27:00, Comfort starts talking about how he knows everyone knows there is a creator. While that is all-true, I'm not sure that is the best way to go. He did a great job at revealing short-comings and how we will face a Judge. But I would recommended him taking that stance and starting with "this is what I believe..." and reference in a 30-second to 1-minute run through about Creation, sin, and the need for a Savior. I am concerned that his move here might shut down a train of thought to consider God's Word that was smoothly going up to here. I love how he tells them they are designed intelligently. And by the 30:00 mark, no one had expressed acceptance, they had definitely considered it to be possible.
Comfort asks if you could be wrong about God (32:00) and was asked back if he could be wrong about God. Comfort responded no, he could not be wrong about God. The response was he was close-minded. But he makes a very good response. He tells he could not be wrong about God's existence in the same way this professor could not be wrong about his wife's existence. That is a good analogy to use. It was a good answer.
Overall, what I was very impressed with is that there was only one trick question Comfort asked and that was referencing how do you spell "Shop" followed by what do you do at a green light? His questions were not fancy worded (and I have seen some creationists use complex questions that can be confusing). They were straight forward. He clarified any question that might be confusing. His questions were very easy to follow for where he was going with a clear direction of progression and he got people to really think. It was very obvious from the answers, especially by the students, that they had never thought about it like they thought they had. I do like how he presented the Gospel except for the one point I mentioned above. It truly is pointless for a creationist to get people to question evolution if not for the purpose of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I suspect some of those students re-evaluated their lives after this and if not already, I suspect some of them will shortly accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Overall, good job Ray Comfort. You still have some areas to tweak but you are doing a great work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
Friday, August 2, 2013
Rak Chazak
This past Wednesday evening (July 31), I was giving the opportunity to share at the finale of my church's final summer Wednesday Night Service. My goal was to get a video recording of it to post on this blog and on YouTube, but I never saw one during the presentation. But instead, I have been requested for the transcript of what I shared. I had a 15-minute presentation where I used sport fencing as a visual tool to demonstrate how we engage in Spiritual warfare. I broke down my talk into four parts: 1). Introduction, 2). The Gospel from a Spiritual Warfare Perspective. 3). The Fencing Visual and 4) Conclusion. As I did my presentation from without notes, this transcript might not cover word-for-word what I said but it will more-or-less paint a very clear description of what I said. So enjoy the read below, despite the lack of video. I will also post some of the references I used when coming up with what I had to share.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAK CHAZAK!!!!!
This is the war cry used throughout the history of the Hebrew Nation. It comes from two words: Chazak and Amats. Chazak is the ultimate game-face of a mighty man. It is tenacity of soul, determination and the deepest resolution to get the job done. Chazak will tense up all your muscles and cause your knuckles to turn white because you are gripping your sword so tightly that your hand will claive to it. That's Chazak. Amats is the unwavering, unyielding courage that drives you head first into the most reckless, hazardous, and impossible battles. It does not consider the opponents strength, size, skill, or numbers. It does not take reality-check. It doesn't not consider the impossibilities.
What examples do we have of this? Joshua and Caleb at the Promised Land? They scouted out the land they were about to inherit. But there is a problem. It was occupied. They found 31 empires, 31 nations, 31 armies that they had to face. Not only that, there were giants in the land. The other 10 spies said "Wait a second. Back to earth, guys. We can't beat these armies." But Joshua and Caleb said "The Lord our God is with us and he promised he would give us this land. Let's go and take it."
What about David and Goliath? Most people compare their sizes, and that is a legitimate concern. Goliath was over 9 feet tall. David was 5 foot- and nothing. But Goliath had four brothers. He wasn't the only giant in the Philistine army. Goliath was the champion because he was the best of the best of the best. And David took one look at him and said "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? Let me have him. He's going down!"
What about the Apostles at Pentecost? The same 12 men that deserted Jesus when he was arrested, the same 12 men that denied even knowing him less than two months earlier, stood before crowds of thousands and the next day before the rules and the leaders. Yes, the Holy Spirit came into them, but with that came Chazak and Amats. What would happen if we got Chazak and Amats? What would happen if Restoration Fellowship (my church) got Chazak and Amats?
You see we are at war. Satan has waged a battle against us since the beginning of time. And he hates every single one of us personally. It does not matter if you know Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Satan is your enemy and he hates you. Why? Because you are made in the image of God and your very existence reminds Satan of God every minute of every day and he is on a mission to destroy that image. There is a problem. Each one of us have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. In our rebellion, each of us have played a part in the destruction of that image God made. But God knew this would happen and he sent Jesus Christ to come and pay the price for our sin. Jesus took the hit, he took the blow that was meant for us. And when we receive Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are freed from that punishment that was meant for us. But there is more. Jesus didn't just pay for the penalty for our sin, he paid for the problem of sin. We are totally delivered from sin and we no longer have to do it. There is more. God has adopted us as his Children and with that, we carry his name, his authority, his identity, and his tools. There is more. God has sent us out on a mission. Our mission is to rescue the lost and deliver them from the sin and the Devil who seeks to destroy them. How do we do this?
As mentioned in the intro, I am a competitive fencer and I have invited a friend of mine, James Snell, to help demonstrate some of the moves that we use in competition to illustrate how to fight in the spiritual battle. Now, before we as fencer are allowed to compete, we have to have the full set of armor that we wear. And one of the number one rules of fencing is that we are not allowed to compete without our masks. Likewise, we cannot engage in the spiritual battle without putting on the Helmet of Salvation. So, once we put our armor on, and I step on guard, I position my blade so I split my body into two areas. One area is called the inside-line. It is everything on my body that in the direction of the inside of my palm and my sword. (I am left-handed, and this is everything to my right of the blade, covering the bulk of my body). The other area is called the Outside-line. That is everything that on the outside of my palm and on the outside of my blade.
Now, when I step on-guard, I am going to make sure that my whole outside line is covered. That way when James attacks me on the outside, he's not going to hit me. (James lunged, and his attack did not hit). What that does is that it forced him to focus on the inside-line. Now, these lines represent areas in our lives. It could be finances, it could be job, school, social circles, family, etc. Back to what I was saying, when I force James to focus where I am open, (He lunged to hit) it is also where I am ready to defend against it (James lunged against, but this time I parried it to show how he missed). This is what is called a Parry. After I parry his blade, I am free to answer back with what is called a Riposte (I lunged to hit James). Satan will go after us where we are open. He did this with Jesus. Jesus fasted for 40 days and he was hungry. Satan said "If you are the Son of Man, turn this stone into bread. You are hungry. You need to eat." Jesus replied "No (while I parried another attack from James), man does not live by bread alone, (then I responded with a riposte) but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." When Satan comes after you in your weak areas, meet that attack directly and answer it with the word of God.
We have a second type of defense and that is called a circle-parry. Here I go around my opponents blade (as I demonstrate with James) and put him where he does not expect to be and where I have control of his bade. And like before, after I parry, I have an opening to riposte. Jesus was a master of this. The Pharisees would often come to him and say "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Here is what the Pharisees wanted to happened. They wanted Jesus to engage in a lengthy debate (as I demonstrated with James and I parrying and riposting each other back and forth). But Jesus took control of the situation (as I took control with a circle-parry) and addressed the heart of the issue: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Sometimes, we have to take control of the situation and say "No, this is the real issue at hand." Now we have two defensive moves we can use. I have time for one more.
This next move is one of the most powerful and effective moves in the sport of the fencing. It is called the 1-2. When executed properly it will carry a beginner fencer all the way to the world championships. Now here is how it works. James is going to do the 1-2 by drawing my defense with a fake attack. He doesn't intend to hit with this attack, but he wants me to think he is. And when I go for the fake attack, I open myself up in another area. Satan is really good at this move. One example I know of is finances and relationships. I recall seeing a poll and one of the top cited reasons for divorce is finances. Why is that? Here is what is going on. Satan is drawing your attention by attacking your finances. He wants your attention focused on your finances, something God promised he would take care of, and when you do that, you expose yourself where Satan really intends to hit: your relationships. There is a way to stop the 1-2. We have several different moves, but one thing is critical. You MUST know this attack is coming before it starts. And you do that by knowing your opponent. I will show two ways to stop it. One is do not buy the feint. Do not chase the false attack. That is not the threat. He doesn't intend to hit you there. So keep your guard up and focus on the real attack. (James executes the 1-2 and I don't move my blade, stopping the attack.) There is another way to stop it. When the second attack comes, follow it and address it. (James executes the 1-2 again and I do a circle-parry on the second action). You can use either one, but you must be wary of this move. Thank you, very much, James (I dismissed James, while I continued preaching.)
We are in a war, but God has given us all the tools and tactics we need to engage and to win. But to win, we must listen to our Commander-in-Chief. We cannot fight this battle on our own strength. We must follow God's orders. And when we do, we will not lose. One thing I did not know until a few months ago is that while we are sent out as sheep amongst wolves, God's kingdom works backwards to the world's way of thinking. The last become first, the poor become rich, the foolish things shame the wise, and the best part is that God's sheep beat the wolf-pack. We are not sent out to lose, we are sent out to win. Here at Restoration Fellowship, we have a mission to reach out to 1% of the population of El Paso and to do that we need Chazak and Amats. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is so much more I wanted to share but I didn't have time to do so or when I was in the moment it didn't come to mind. (I didn't have notes, remember). But it was what God wanted me to share. In reflecting back over it, God did a miracle as he has done several times in the past when I share. I stutter when I talk. I can't help it and it just is the way I talk. But during this presentation, I stuttered hardly at all, and all of it was due to trying to recall what I was going to say rather than just how I talk. That is God in action through me. It was an incredible time and it is something I will definitely been doing again when God opens the door. I've been doing presentations like this for about 9 years now but I took it to a whole new level this time and God showed up. And to wrap up this excellent night, we had a baptism after the service and I was baptized as an adult (I was baptized earlier when I was 9) to be symbolic of this new level God has taken me. I do hope I will get a chance to do this again soon and get it video recorded but this will do for now.
For reference: I got the information for the Israelite War Cry: Rak Chazak from this video above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAK CHAZAK!!!!!
This is the war cry used throughout the history of the Hebrew Nation. It comes from two words: Chazak and Amats. Chazak is the ultimate game-face of a mighty man. It is tenacity of soul, determination and the deepest resolution to get the job done. Chazak will tense up all your muscles and cause your knuckles to turn white because you are gripping your sword so tightly that your hand will claive to it. That's Chazak. Amats is the unwavering, unyielding courage that drives you head first into the most reckless, hazardous, and impossible battles. It does not consider the opponents strength, size, skill, or numbers. It does not take reality-check. It doesn't not consider the impossibilities.
What examples do we have of this? Joshua and Caleb at the Promised Land? They scouted out the land they were about to inherit. But there is a problem. It was occupied. They found 31 empires, 31 nations, 31 armies that they had to face. Not only that, there were giants in the land. The other 10 spies said "Wait a second. Back to earth, guys. We can't beat these armies." But Joshua and Caleb said "The Lord our God is with us and he promised he would give us this land. Let's go and take it."
What about David and Goliath? Most people compare their sizes, and that is a legitimate concern. Goliath was over 9 feet tall. David was 5 foot- and nothing. But Goliath had four brothers. He wasn't the only giant in the Philistine army. Goliath was the champion because he was the best of the best of the best. And David took one look at him and said "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? Let me have him. He's going down!"
What about the Apostles at Pentecost? The same 12 men that deserted Jesus when he was arrested, the same 12 men that denied even knowing him less than two months earlier, stood before crowds of thousands and the next day before the rules and the leaders. Yes, the Holy Spirit came into them, but with that came Chazak and Amats. What would happen if we got Chazak and Amats? What would happen if Restoration Fellowship (my church) got Chazak and Amats?
You see we are at war. Satan has waged a battle against us since the beginning of time. And he hates every single one of us personally. It does not matter if you know Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Satan is your enemy and he hates you. Why? Because you are made in the image of God and your very existence reminds Satan of God every minute of every day and he is on a mission to destroy that image. There is a problem. Each one of us have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. In our rebellion, each of us have played a part in the destruction of that image God made. But God knew this would happen and he sent Jesus Christ to come and pay the price for our sin. Jesus took the hit, he took the blow that was meant for us. And when we receive Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are freed from that punishment that was meant for us. But there is more. Jesus didn't just pay for the penalty for our sin, he paid for the problem of sin. We are totally delivered from sin and we no longer have to do it. There is more. God has adopted us as his Children and with that, we carry his name, his authority, his identity, and his tools. There is more. God has sent us out on a mission. Our mission is to rescue the lost and deliver them from the sin and the Devil who seeks to destroy them. How do we do this?
As mentioned in the intro, I am a competitive fencer and I have invited a friend of mine, James Snell, to help demonstrate some of the moves that we use in competition to illustrate how to fight in the spiritual battle. Now, before we as fencer are allowed to compete, we have to have the full set of armor that we wear. And one of the number one rules of fencing is that we are not allowed to compete without our masks. Likewise, we cannot engage in the spiritual battle without putting on the Helmet of Salvation. So, once we put our armor on, and I step on guard, I position my blade so I split my body into two areas. One area is called the inside-line. It is everything on my body that in the direction of the inside of my palm and my sword. (I am left-handed, and this is everything to my right of the blade, covering the bulk of my body). The other area is called the Outside-line. That is everything that on the outside of my palm and on the outside of my blade.
Now, when I step on-guard, I am going to make sure that my whole outside line is covered. That way when James attacks me on the outside, he's not going to hit me. (James lunged, and his attack did not hit). What that does is that it forced him to focus on the inside-line. Now, these lines represent areas in our lives. It could be finances, it could be job, school, social circles, family, etc. Back to what I was saying, when I force James to focus where I am open, (He lunged to hit) it is also where I am ready to defend against it (James lunged against, but this time I parried it to show how he missed). This is what is called a Parry. After I parry his blade, I am free to answer back with what is called a Riposte (I lunged to hit James). Satan will go after us where we are open. He did this with Jesus. Jesus fasted for 40 days and he was hungry. Satan said "If you are the Son of Man, turn this stone into bread. You are hungry. You need to eat." Jesus replied "No (while I parried another attack from James), man does not live by bread alone, (then I responded with a riposte) but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." When Satan comes after you in your weak areas, meet that attack directly and answer it with the word of God.
We have a second type of defense and that is called a circle-parry. Here I go around my opponents blade (as I demonstrate with James) and put him where he does not expect to be and where I have control of his bade. And like before, after I parry, I have an opening to riposte. Jesus was a master of this. The Pharisees would often come to him and say "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Here is what the Pharisees wanted to happened. They wanted Jesus to engage in a lengthy debate (as I demonstrated with James and I parrying and riposting each other back and forth). But Jesus took control of the situation (as I took control with a circle-parry) and addressed the heart of the issue: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Sometimes, we have to take control of the situation and say "No, this is the real issue at hand." Now we have two defensive moves we can use. I have time for one more.
This next move is one of the most powerful and effective moves in the sport of the fencing. It is called the 1-2. When executed properly it will carry a beginner fencer all the way to the world championships. Now here is how it works. James is going to do the 1-2 by drawing my defense with a fake attack. He doesn't intend to hit with this attack, but he wants me to think he is. And when I go for the fake attack, I open myself up in another area. Satan is really good at this move. One example I know of is finances and relationships. I recall seeing a poll and one of the top cited reasons for divorce is finances. Why is that? Here is what is going on. Satan is drawing your attention by attacking your finances. He wants your attention focused on your finances, something God promised he would take care of, and when you do that, you expose yourself where Satan really intends to hit: your relationships. There is a way to stop the 1-2. We have several different moves, but one thing is critical. You MUST know this attack is coming before it starts. And you do that by knowing your opponent. I will show two ways to stop it. One is do not buy the feint. Do not chase the false attack. That is not the threat. He doesn't intend to hit you there. So keep your guard up and focus on the real attack. (James executes the 1-2 and I don't move my blade, stopping the attack.) There is another way to stop it. When the second attack comes, follow it and address it. (James executes the 1-2 again and I do a circle-parry on the second action). You can use either one, but you must be wary of this move. Thank you, very much, James (I dismissed James, while I continued preaching.)
We are in a war, but God has given us all the tools and tactics we need to engage and to win. But to win, we must listen to our Commander-in-Chief. We cannot fight this battle on our own strength. We must follow God's orders. And when we do, we will not lose. One thing I did not know until a few months ago is that while we are sent out as sheep amongst wolves, God's kingdom works backwards to the world's way of thinking. The last become first, the poor become rich, the foolish things shame the wise, and the best part is that God's sheep beat the wolf-pack. We are not sent out to lose, we are sent out to win. Here at Restoration Fellowship, we have a mission to reach out to 1% of the population of El Paso and to do that we need Chazak and Amats. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is so much more I wanted to share but I didn't have time to do so or when I was in the moment it didn't come to mind. (I didn't have notes, remember). But it was what God wanted me to share. In reflecting back over it, God did a miracle as he has done several times in the past when I share. I stutter when I talk. I can't help it and it just is the way I talk. But during this presentation, I stuttered hardly at all, and all of it was due to trying to recall what I was going to say rather than just how I talk. That is God in action through me. It was an incredible time and it is something I will definitely been doing again when God opens the door. I've been doing presentations like this for about 9 years now but I took it to a whole new level this time and God showed up. And to wrap up this excellent night, we had a baptism after the service and I was baptized as an adult (I was baptized earlier when I was 9) to be symbolic of this new level God has taken me. I do hope I will get a chance to do this again soon and get it video recorded but this will do for now.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Information: What is it?
In a recent discussion, the issue about information came up. From a scientific standpoint, what is information? One of the most incredible discoveries in biological sciences was DNA and the fact that DNA contains information. DNA contains all the information that determines our height, build, hair color, eye color, skin color, curly hair, attached ear lobes, our joints, bones, and blood types. DNA contains all that information. But there is a problem. Many people have confused the information that DNA contains with the DNA itself. This is a common misconception but there are whole concepts and ideas that are built up and dependent upon this misconception. This misconception is the same as confusion the words on this blog post with the information contained within the words of the blog post.
Information by definition is non-material. It does not have a physical definition. It is an idea. A concept. Information can be carried in a wide variety of ways and manners. Written language is an excellent means of describing this distinction. The English language consists of 26 letters which compose every word we use. The letters themselves are symbols that represent various sounds or ideas. Exactly how these letters developed is beyond my realm of knowledge. But to make a long story short, in the English language, the 26 letters and the words from which these are composed are unanimously agreed upon by those who speak English to represent the words and ideas we understand. When we see the word "car" in written language, we automatically will have a picture of a vehicle that has four wheels, an engine, and often will seat 4 passengers including the driver. When we see the word "red" we immediately think of the color. But "red" has more than one meaning. To most it is just a descriptive color. But to some, it means a symbol of war. To others, it means a warning. What the word "red" means will vary depending upon who is saying it, who is receiving it, and the context it is being used for.
All forms of codes work the same way. Computer language, binary code, is interesting. We send a signal meaning 5V along a wire and the presence of the voltage is represented by a 1 and a lack of a 5V presence is represented by a 0. The sequence of 1s and 0s is not anything but a series of voltages and lack thereof. There is no information that itself. However, man has put meaning behind that sequence of 0s and 1s to create a massive complex of instructions that are now running our digital age. What is interesting is that the same sequence of 0s and 1s can represent a wide variety of different things. It can represent a color, it can represent a mathematical operation, it can represent a memory location or it can represent the contents of that memory location. How do we tell which is which? The same code is passed through different chips in the CPU and each chip knows exactly what it is dealing with. A memory chip knows by the order of 0s and 1s and the number of them if it needs to access a particular memory location or pull the contents of that memory location, or to store memory into that location. How? The easy answer is "we programmed it to do it". WE know what it means in that particular context so we can direct the chip to perform a particular action when it sees a particular sequence of 0s and 1s. And to make things easier, we represent these said action with a word used in our language which forms the basis of Computer Programming Languages. What is important is that the 0s and 1s are not the information itself but the medium through which the information is transmitted.
Where the confusion between information and the medium of information plays a role is in the Theory of Evolution. DNA and Computer Systems are strikingly similar. Why? They are both read digitally. Computer Systems are read in a sequence of 0s and 1s. DNA is read on a double-helix of four chemical compounds A, T, G, and C. When DNA is passed through the cells, the organelles that read the DNA pick up the context stores in the DNA and perform the instructions they receive. Another organelle will receive the same code but get different instructions. How could this be? Context. The same code read by one person will get one meaning but the same code read by a second person will get a different meaning because the context of the reader will be different. This is how coded messages work. The people who know the "key" to the code will get information out of the text or sequence, bot those who do not know the "key" will only see gibberish.
I have frequently seen people describe Evolution as the "gain of information". And they describe this "gain" with text. One example I have seen several times is if we have the word "red" but through a "mutation" we get "read", that is "new" information. But is it? Let's put that into context.
"I was driving down the road and I saw a red light..."
"I was driving down the road and I saw a read light..."
If this were to be in any novel, it would take the reader out the story and make the reader go back and read it again. Information here was not gained by lost. In this example, most readers would be able to back and make a mental correction and read what is actually intended.
One of the most amazing things about DNA is that is can self-repair. How does it do this? I'll be honest, I don't know the details. I just know it can and does self-repair. If DNA can self-repair, it must have a context, it must have some kind of mechanism that tells it something is wrong. What is more is that it must have some sort of standard to compare to in order to determine if something is wrong. The fact that DNA can self-repair flies in the face of Evolution, because the theory requires the mutations to gather over time. If DNA can self-repair, it would seek to fix any of these mutations. When it can't, it means something is wrong with the standard or the mechanism that does the self-repair.
There is a Law about Information. It states that every piece of information must originate from an intelligent mind. Considering information is the meaning behind the symbols/code/language, regardless of whether that information comes through a medium of written language, computer code, Morse Code, music, audio waves, digital waves, light signals, or whatever medium you choose, if you trace back information it will always come to an intelligent mind. Let's trace the history of the information contains in the movie "Troy" (2004 with Brad Pitt). The movie concept came from mind of the director, who before that got the picture of the movie from the screenwriter. The Screenwriter got the information from an audio copy of the book The Iliad or read the book. That book was translated from a copy of the original Greek to English and that copy can be traced eventually back to the mind of Homer. But there is more. Where did Homer get the information for his story? Obviously not all of it was true, but the information still had to come from somewhere. Part of it was traced back to a likely war between the Greeks and the Trojans. Homer goes into some of the reasons for that war. What inspired Agamemnon to attack Troy? Where did the ideas of the Greek gods come from? The latter question is rather interesting. Some more research needs to be done but some of the Greeks gods in name and origin actually trace back some of the names listed in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. If we continue this path, we eventually will find ourselves with Adam and Eve and God. Adam and Eve's knowledge and information had to come from somewhere and the only logical conclusion is that their knowledge came from the source of all knowledge: God himself. Otherwise we will end up with an infinite regression that eventually will collapse on itself.
The study of information is incredible. How we can convert the meaning behind one medium of information to another without losing the meaning is proof that information is not the same thing as the medium through which it is carried. One must be careful not to confuse the medium of information with the information itself. When the two are separated into their proper places, it is all solid evidence that God is who he says he is in the Bible. Evolution cannot stand if these two are in their proper place. It must equate the two in order to try to make sense. But the two are not interchangeable and because of this, we have another reason why Evolution cannot hold water. I trust God is who he said he is and he meant what he said. And because information can be known, I have no excuse to not trust him.
Information by definition is non-material. It does not have a physical definition. It is an idea. A concept. Information can be carried in a wide variety of ways and manners. Written language is an excellent means of describing this distinction. The English language consists of 26 letters which compose every word we use. The letters themselves are symbols that represent various sounds or ideas. Exactly how these letters developed is beyond my realm of knowledge. But to make a long story short, in the English language, the 26 letters and the words from which these are composed are unanimously agreed upon by those who speak English to represent the words and ideas we understand. When we see the word "car" in written language, we automatically will have a picture of a vehicle that has four wheels, an engine, and often will seat 4 passengers including the driver. When we see the word "red" we immediately think of the color. But "red" has more than one meaning. To most it is just a descriptive color. But to some, it means a symbol of war. To others, it means a warning. What the word "red" means will vary depending upon who is saying it, who is receiving it, and the context it is being used for.
All forms of codes work the same way. Computer language, binary code, is interesting. We send a signal meaning 5V along a wire and the presence of the voltage is represented by a 1 and a lack of a 5V presence is represented by a 0. The sequence of 1s and 0s is not anything but a series of voltages and lack thereof. There is no information that itself. However, man has put meaning behind that sequence of 0s and 1s to create a massive complex of instructions that are now running our digital age. What is interesting is that the same sequence of 0s and 1s can represent a wide variety of different things. It can represent a color, it can represent a mathematical operation, it can represent a memory location or it can represent the contents of that memory location. How do we tell which is which? The same code is passed through different chips in the CPU and each chip knows exactly what it is dealing with. A memory chip knows by the order of 0s and 1s and the number of them if it needs to access a particular memory location or pull the contents of that memory location, or to store memory into that location. How? The easy answer is "we programmed it to do it". WE know what it means in that particular context so we can direct the chip to perform a particular action when it sees a particular sequence of 0s and 1s. And to make things easier, we represent these said action with a word used in our language which forms the basis of Computer Programming Languages. What is important is that the 0s and 1s are not the information itself but the medium through which the information is transmitted.
Where the confusion between information and the medium of information plays a role is in the Theory of Evolution. DNA and Computer Systems are strikingly similar. Why? They are both read digitally. Computer Systems are read in a sequence of 0s and 1s. DNA is read on a double-helix of four chemical compounds A, T, G, and C. When DNA is passed through the cells, the organelles that read the DNA pick up the context stores in the DNA and perform the instructions they receive. Another organelle will receive the same code but get different instructions. How could this be? Context. The same code read by one person will get one meaning but the same code read by a second person will get a different meaning because the context of the reader will be different. This is how coded messages work. The people who know the "key" to the code will get information out of the text or sequence, bot those who do not know the "key" will only see gibberish.
I have frequently seen people describe Evolution as the "gain of information". And they describe this "gain" with text. One example I have seen several times is if we have the word "red" but through a "mutation" we get "read", that is "new" information. But is it? Let's put that into context.
"I was driving down the road and I saw a red light..."
"I was driving down the road and I saw a read light..."
If this were to be in any novel, it would take the reader out the story and make the reader go back and read it again. Information here was not gained by lost. In this example, most readers would be able to back and make a mental correction and read what is actually intended.
One of the most amazing things about DNA is that is can self-repair. How does it do this? I'll be honest, I don't know the details. I just know it can and does self-repair. If DNA can self-repair, it must have a context, it must have some kind of mechanism that tells it something is wrong. What is more is that it must have some sort of standard to compare to in order to determine if something is wrong. The fact that DNA can self-repair flies in the face of Evolution, because the theory requires the mutations to gather over time. If DNA can self-repair, it would seek to fix any of these mutations. When it can't, it means something is wrong with the standard or the mechanism that does the self-repair.
There is a Law about Information. It states that every piece of information must originate from an intelligent mind. Considering information is the meaning behind the symbols/code/language, regardless of whether that information comes through a medium of written language, computer code, Morse Code, music, audio waves, digital waves, light signals, or whatever medium you choose, if you trace back information it will always come to an intelligent mind. Let's trace the history of the information contains in the movie "Troy" (2004 with Brad Pitt). The movie concept came from mind of the director, who before that got the picture of the movie from the screenwriter. The Screenwriter got the information from an audio copy of the book The Iliad or read the book. That book was translated from a copy of the original Greek to English and that copy can be traced eventually back to the mind of Homer. But there is more. Where did Homer get the information for his story? Obviously not all of it was true, but the information still had to come from somewhere. Part of it was traced back to a likely war between the Greeks and the Trojans. Homer goes into some of the reasons for that war. What inspired Agamemnon to attack Troy? Where did the ideas of the Greek gods come from? The latter question is rather interesting. Some more research needs to be done but some of the Greeks gods in name and origin actually trace back some of the names listed in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. If we continue this path, we eventually will find ourselves with Adam and Eve and God. Adam and Eve's knowledge and information had to come from somewhere and the only logical conclusion is that their knowledge came from the source of all knowledge: God himself. Otherwise we will end up with an infinite regression that eventually will collapse on itself.
The study of information is incredible. How we can convert the meaning behind one medium of information to another without losing the meaning is proof that information is not the same thing as the medium through which it is carried. One must be careful not to confuse the medium of information with the information itself. When the two are separated into their proper places, it is all solid evidence that God is who he says he is in the Bible. Evolution cannot stand if these two are in their proper place. It must equate the two in order to try to make sense. But the two are not interchangeable and because of this, we have another reason why Evolution cannot hold water. I trust God is who he said he is and he meant what he said. And because information can be known, I have no excuse to not trust him.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
The Authority of Scripture
I often participate in various discussions on-line about the Creation vs Evolution debate. One of the issues that is critical in this discussion is the authority of Scripture. I am not out to prove that the Bible is reliable in this post (and I would need a MUCH longer post to demonstrate that), but I am going to compare three different ways the Bible is used in terms of being an authority in someone's life, using the Creation/Evolution debate to illustrate. The three ways are
1). The Bible is the Ultimate or Final Authority
2). The Bible is a authority.
3). The Bible has no authority.
In the first case, there are very few Ultimate or Final Authorities. As a Christian, the Bible is my Ultimate Authority. An Ultimate (or Final) Authority cannot reference anything else that is higher, otherwise that authority would be the Ultimate Authority. An Ultimate Authority can only appeal to itself. Two examples of this are mathematical axioms and the Rules of Logic. In math, an axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true but cannot be proven by outside means. It does however prove itself. Logic is the same way. There is nothing we can use to prove the laws of Logic other than with the laws of Logic. The same concept applies with the Bible. If the Bible is an Ultimate Authority, there is no authority that can prove it other than itself. It can only appeal to itself. Some may argue "God wrote the Bible, and as the author, he must be higher." That is true, but God by his nature cannot contradict his word. So I have to consider God and the Bible to be on the same tier in terms of authority and they do circularly appeal to each other. One thing I need to make clear is that ONLY with an Ultimate/Final authority does circular reasoning apply validly. Because an Ultimate Authority can only appeal to itself.
When someone places the Bible as their Ultimate Authority, it is the deciding factor on all cases. On any issue, an Ultimate Authority trumps what any other authority says. In the Creation/Evolution debate if the Bible is the Ultimate Authority, it must trump what any other person says, no matter their degree or field of expertise. The Age of the Earth issue is frequently brought up in these discussions. The Bible gives a historic account through the Genealogies (repeated three times in Genesis 5 and 11, in 1 Chronicles 1-9, and in Luke 3. In the Genesis accounts we have the ages of the father when the son was born and it does not take much to add them up and discover that the Bible records a history that is only about 6000 years old. There are many scientists that will tell us that the earth is billions of years old. If the Bible is the Ultimate Authority, then the Bible's take on it will trump what the scientists say about it. The Bible is not a science textbook, nor a history textbook, but it does say enough to give us guidelines on how to interpret and discern what man says in fields the Bible is not very specific on. The Bible contains a lot of history, but it is not about history. The Bible does not talk about how gravity works or about the history of the Mayan Empires. But it does give a timeline for when the major people groups dispersed and it gives guidelines that God is a God of order and structure, and that his creation reflects that character. It does talk about what took place and when and gives a clear enough picture to establish when and how any other events would take place.
Many however do not treat the Bible as their Ultimate Authority. They just use it as a authority. When it is just another authority, when you have to conflicting data points, it is arbitrary which authority is taken. I often hear people claim they can believe both "science" and the Bible at the same time, as though they think those who hold the Bible as their Ultimate Authority pit the two against each other. (Those who hold the Bible as the Ultimate Authority see science as supporting the Bible but must be carried out with the understanding that the Bible is the Ultimate Authority on the issue. That is: Science that reveals conflicting data with what the Bible declares needs to be revisited.) The primary argument sounds like this. "God is the author of the Bible and the author of nature and nature is a valid as a 67th book of the Bible." What this actually means is "the science done by secular means that does not consider the Bible as an authority is as valid as a 67th book of the Bible". The claim is that our studies of science (which does not consider input from the Bible) is on the same tier of authority as the Bible itself. And in actual practice, when something comes up that is debatable, very rarely is the Bible's take accepted. The Theory of Evolution states that all life came from a single common ancestor. The Bible says that all the life forms reproduce after their kinds. In comparing the two, more often than not, the Evolutionary approach will take precedence over the Bible when the Bible is just a authority and not the Ultimate Authority. When the Bible is just a authority, it gives liberty to pick and choose which parts are worthy of being authoritative and which ones are not. This makes the person the judge of which is a quality authority on whatever subject they want which makes themselves the authority. Many people say the Bible is only authoritative on religious matters but does not have the authority on history, science, etc. It just does not work that way. The Bible's religious matters are rooted in the historical documentations. Many will say the Genesis account of Creation, Noah's Flood, and the Tower of Babel are just myths based on other Middle-Eastern cultures. It does not take a genius to follow that logic and say the same thing about Christ. Many do make the arguments that Jesus' birth, life, death, and Resurrection were just a myth as well. If the Bible is just a authority, there is no logical place to determine where you use it and where you don't. And most of the time, in actual practice, it is "don't".
The last case is those that do not consider the Bible to be authoritative at all. These are the people that never open up the Bible, never read it, and do not seek to follow it in any regard. They see all the historical accounts as myth at best, or just fairy tales. They have no regard for the Law established by Moses, which Jesus upheld. They only follow the parts of that Law that coincides with what society has already established. When one does not have the Bible as any authority, discussions with said people can be a challenge. Paul had this challenge in Athens in Acts 17. He was dealing with the best of the best of the best of the philosophers in the world who had never heard of the Biblical account. It was foolishness to them. So Paul had to address them by establishing a new worldview for them, referencing the "statue to the Unknown god" and then making a Gospel appeal from there. He did not win many converts like Peter did in Acts 2.
So where does the Bible fall in your list of authorities? Do you ever think about it or follow what it says? Do you only follow some of it, the parts that seem and feel good to you? Or do you let it guide and direct every area of your life? The Bible is my Ultimate Authority. I do not always follow it as I should and when I fail, that is sin. And that is also WHY I need a Savior. But because I place the Bible as my Ultimate Authority, I must align my worldview and how I look at things in accordance to how the Bible does it. I must conform to what the Bible teaches, which will also conform myself to Christ himself. Now all this being said, if the Bible is the Ultimate Authority, it does not strip away what anyone else has to say. But as the Ultimate Authority, what anyone else has to say must be aligned with the Bible, and if what they say contradicts the Bible in any way, then they are wrong. Romans 3:4 says "Yea, let God be the truth and every man a liar." This includes me. What I say is subject to be tested in accordance to Scripture. If what I say goes against what the Bible says, I am wrong, period. If what I say is not explicitly stated in Scripture but does not go against what the Bible says, then I could be right. And if what I say matches what is explicitly stated in Scripture, then I cannot be wrong. What is your ultimate authority? Many people when they dig down will often find it is themselves which is arbitrary and often "what feels good at the moment". For me, I know I fall short. I know I am not a reliable judge of my own abilities. I stand in accordance to what the Bible teaches and when I judge, I seek to judge using the Bible as the standard. And when I call out a sin for what it is, I must also remember that I too am just as guilty and apart from the Grace of God, I would be no different than said person.
1). The Bible is the Ultimate or Final Authority
2). The Bible is a authority.
3). The Bible has no authority.
In the first case, there are very few Ultimate or Final Authorities. As a Christian, the Bible is my Ultimate Authority. An Ultimate (or Final) Authority cannot reference anything else that is higher, otherwise that authority would be the Ultimate Authority. An Ultimate Authority can only appeal to itself. Two examples of this are mathematical axioms and the Rules of Logic. In math, an axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true but cannot be proven by outside means. It does however prove itself. Logic is the same way. There is nothing we can use to prove the laws of Logic other than with the laws of Logic. The same concept applies with the Bible. If the Bible is an Ultimate Authority, there is no authority that can prove it other than itself. It can only appeal to itself. Some may argue "God wrote the Bible, and as the author, he must be higher." That is true, but God by his nature cannot contradict his word. So I have to consider God and the Bible to be on the same tier in terms of authority and they do circularly appeal to each other. One thing I need to make clear is that ONLY with an Ultimate/Final authority does circular reasoning apply validly. Because an Ultimate Authority can only appeal to itself.
When someone places the Bible as their Ultimate Authority, it is the deciding factor on all cases. On any issue, an Ultimate Authority trumps what any other authority says. In the Creation/Evolution debate if the Bible is the Ultimate Authority, it must trump what any other person says, no matter their degree or field of expertise. The Age of the Earth issue is frequently brought up in these discussions. The Bible gives a historic account through the Genealogies (repeated three times in Genesis 5 and 11, in 1 Chronicles 1-9, and in Luke 3. In the Genesis accounts we have the ages of the father when the son was born and it does not take much to add them up and discover that the Bible records a history that is only about 6000 years old. There are many scientists that will tell us that the earth is billions of years old. If the Bible is the Ultimate Authority, then the Bible's take on it will trump what the scientists say about it. The Bible is not a science textbook, nor a history textbook, but it does say enough to give us guidelines on how to interpret and discern what man says in fields the Bible is not very specific on. The Bible contains a lot of history, but it is not about history. The Bible does not talk about how gravity works or about the history of the Mayan Empires. But it does give a timeline for when the major people groups dispersed and it gives guidelines that God is a God of order and structure, and that his creation reflects that character. It does talk about what took place and when and gives a clear enough picture to establish when and how any other events would take place.
Many however do not treat the Bible as their Ultimate Authority. They just use it as a authority. When it is just another authority, when you have to conflicting data points, it is arbitrary which authority is taken. I often hear people claim they can believe both "science" and the Bible at the same time, as though they think those who hold the Bible as their Ultimate Authority pit the two against each other. (Those who hold the Bible as the Ultimate Authority see science as supporting the Bible but must be carried out with the understanding that the Bible is the Ultimate Authority on the issue. That is: Science that reveals conflicting data with what the Bible declares needs to be revisited.) The primary argument sounds like this. "God is the author of the Bible and the author of nature and nature is a valid as a 67th book of the Bible." What this actually means is "the science done by secular means that does not consider the Bible as an authority is as valid as a 67th book of the Bible". The claim is that our studies of science (which does not consider input from the Bible) is on the same tier of authority as the Bible itself. And in actual practice, when something comes up that is debatable, very rarely is the Bible's take accepted. The Theory of Evolution states that all life came from a single common ancestor. The Bible says that all the life forms reproduce after their kinds. In comparing the two, more often than not, the Evolutionary approach will take precedence over the Bible when the Bible is just a authority and not the Ultimate Authority. When the Bible is just a authority, it gives liberty to pick and choose which parts are worthy of being authoritative and which ones are not. This makes the person the judge of which is a quality authority on whatever subject they want which makes themselves the authority. Many people say the Bible is only authoritative on religious matters but does not have the authority on history, science, etc. It just does not work that way. The Bible's religious matters are rooted in the historical documentations. Many will say the Genesis account of Creation, Noah's Flood, and the Tower of Babel are just myths based on other Middle-Eastern cultures. It does not take a genius to follow that logic and say the same thing about Christ. Many do make the arguments that Jesus' birth, life, death, and Resurrection were just a myth as well. If the Bible is just a authority, there is no logical place to determine where you use it and where you don't. And most of the time, in actual practice, it is "don't".
The last case is those that do not consider the Bible to be authoritative at all. These are the people that never open up the Bible, never read it, and do not seek to follow it in any regard. They see all the historical accounts as myth at best, or just fairy tales. They have no regard for the Law established by Moses, which Jesus upheld. They only follow the parts of that Law that coincides with what society has already established. When one does not have the Bible as any authority, discussions with said people can be a challenge. Paul had this challenge in Athens in Acts 17. He was dealing with the best of the best of the best of the philosophers in the world who had never heard of the Biblical account. It was foolishness to them. So Paul had to address them by establishing a new worldview for them, referencing the "statue to the Unknown god" and then making a Gospel appeal from there. He did not win many converts like Peter did in Acts 2.
So where does the Bible fall in your list of authorities? Do you ever think about it or follow what it says? Do you only follow some of it, the parts that seem and feel good to you? Or do you let it guide and direct every area of your life? The Bible is my Ultimate Authority. I do not always follow it as I should and when I fail, that is sin. And that is also WHY I need a Savior. But because I place the Bible as my Ultimate Authority, I must align my worldview and how I look at things in accordance to how the Bible does it. I must conform to what the Bible teaches, which will also conform myself to Christ himself. Now all this being said, if the Bible is the Ultimate Authority, it does not strip away what anyone else has to say. But as the Ultimate Authority, what anyone else has to say must be aligned with the Bible, and if what they say contradicts the Bible in any way, then they are wrong. Romans 3:4 says "Yea, let God be the truth and every man a liar." This includes me. What I say is subject to be tested in accordance to Scripture. If what I say goes against what the Bible says, I am wrong, period. If what I say is not explicitly stated in Scripture but does not go against what the Bible says, then I could be right. And if what I say matches what is explicitly stated in Scripture, then I cannot be wrong. What is your ultimate authority? Many people when they dig down will often find it is themselves which is arbitrary and often "what feels good at the moment". For me, I know I fall short. I know I am not a reliable judge of my own abilities. I stand in accordance to what the Bible teaches and when I judge, I seek to judge using the Bible as the standard. And when I call out a sin for what it is, I must also remember that I too am just as guilty and apart from the Grace of God, I would be no different than said person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)