Roots Of Secular Humanism...

Humanism, An Idea From Antiquity:

You may believe that Secular Humanism is something "new under the sun," but it was an idea in the Aegean Sea area of classical Greece. Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things" (homo mensura).  It goes earlier than that to the plain of Shinar in Gen. 11:4 where men sought to "make a name for themselves."

"For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude.  Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 12:221-22, HCSB).  

"...Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?  (Job 15:8b, NIV).

What the essence of humanism is, is glory to man in the highest:  the deification or exaltation of man, and dethroning of God.  Humanism 101:  "Up with man; down with God, because we can do good without Him!"  What they mean is to start with man as the measure or standard and judge everything accordingly:  Instead of starting the rationale with God--"In the beginning God..," the commence with man and his finite cerebral capacity, whereby God is infinite and the Greeks said that the finite cannot grasp the infinite--how ironic!  "In all his scheming, the wicked arrogantly thinks: 'There is no accountability since God does not exist" (Psalm 10:4, HCSB).  "...[A]ll is thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:4, ESV).  (God is in none of his thoughts!)  When you take God out of the reckoning man becomes depraved without limit and God gives them up to go their own way--yes, even man's brain or intellect is depraved and is incapable of spiritual apprehension:  "No one understands" (cf. Rom. 3:10f).   "...My people do not understand" (Isaiah 1:3, NASB).   "...So the people without understanding are ruined"  (Hos. 4:14, NASB).  "...The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint"  (Isaiah 1:5, ESV).

Secular Humanism is defined as a religion without God in the equation.  It is completely incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview. Humanists do not believe that there is a supernatural and deny any deity or divinity of any notion in their reckoning.  When you take God out of the equation man loses focus and orientation, and has no moral compass to guide him and sees a distorted reality: such as Eastern religion seeing all reality as Maya or an illusion.  Humanism is a religion with high priests, meetings, and even has the Humanist Manifesto of doctrines to adhere to John Dewey was one of the early proponents who introduced the ideas into our educational system and is the so-called father of American public education.  They even have "Secular Humanist of the year" awards!  Their chief tenet is that there is no absolute moral code to live by and we are capable of concocting our own morality.

America is entering the New World Order (or era):  Trump vows to keep God out of it [politics]. Humanists want a world without God and any religious influence--even banning signage of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools, taking the motto "In God We Trust" off our coins, and "One nation under God" off our pledge of allegiance (they have already banned Bible reading and classroom prayer in public schools in 1963, when infamous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair protested and litigated).  Will we have a National Day of Prayer and a prayer breakfast at the White House? They are opposed to Christianity because they cannot stomach the fact that some people are "lost" and need salvation, and they believe in their Humanist Manifesto II of 1973:  "No deity will save us, we must save ourselves."

Their faith is in science, or should I say "scientism," which is using science for non-scientific purposes such as finding ethical, philosophical, and religious truth (an example is saying that the cosmos is all there is and all there was and all there ever will be--Carl Sagan). They are people of faith too--in the scientific method to solve our problems and lead to all truth.  There are not people of faith and people of reason or rationale, because everyone has faith and starts with some presupposition they cannot prove.  The building block of the "religion" is evolution and they regard any encroachment upon this dogma as heretical and intolerable. For example, Carl Sagan said that evolution is a "fact", not a "theory." Note:  It's unproven and unprovable since history is nonrepeatable, there are no witnesses, they cannot account for the origin of life nor the arrival of the fittest,  and a new species has never been observed to evolve in either the fossil record or in real time.

Humanism is indeed a religion, though they say it is not because they don't believe in "God." But even John Dewey said in A Common Faith that you can be "religious" without having "religion." Atheism has been declared a religion by the Seventh Court of Appeals!   Humanism is more than disbelief in God; it's anti-God and, as a worldview, interprets everything without God in the picture, which is contrary to the rise of Western civilization.  We might call Secular Humanism a post-theological worldview and they are in the process or rewriting history--a red flag!

A fundamental repercussion of their worldview is that God never intervened in history (Jesus is seen as a legend, myth, lie, etc.), and worse yet, man is not created in the image of God with a soul and spirit, but is a materialistic, naturalistic hodgepodge of atoms colliding with no divine purpose--life has no meaning or purpose (words anathema to them), and, since we are animals in heat avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, we can feel free to live without moral restraint, hell to shun, nor judgment to fear, just like animals and feel no "guilt," which comes only from religion. Note:  We are not a freak biological accident or some fluke of nature!  In scientific parlance, they are monists, not believers in dualism like Christians, in that they don't believe we have a mind, separate from our brain, but it's only a projection of brain activity and there is no soul or spirit within us.

The whole point of Secular Humanism is to be good without God and to be religious without the so-called religion! They deify and exalt man and dethrone and ignore God, making a name for the man and blaspheming God's name! Idolatry is not giving God His rightful domain!

So what?  Secular Humanists want Christians in their camp, but they must be willing to privatize their faith, not flaunting it or making it public--keep it in church!  What we are beholding is the secularization of our society where "we have forgotten God" (Will Durant, humanist historian).  The Constitution guarantees the free expression of faith or religion with no State interference or regulation.  Playwright George Bernard Shaw said that "no nation has ever survived the loss of its gods."  Dostoevsky said that without God all things are permissible--this is our future?  Caveat: Secular Humanists pin the blame for our problem on man's preoccupation with the spiritual element and mostly fault Christianity!  Soli Deo Gloria!

Loving The Romanists

People can be sincerely wrong, though sincerity is important, it is not everything.  You can have a sound theology without a sound life, but not a sound life without a sound theology; however, it is more vital to have a heart in tune or in sync with Christ, and in the right place than to be orthodox and impeccably correct in one's doctrines--man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

Keeping our eyes, focused on the goal, which is to win them over and not be a stumbling block or artificial roadblock, that hinders one's search for the truth will set him free. Our goal should be to build bridges not tear them down. We may even have to pray for an open door. Caveat:  You can be dead right as well as dead wrong!  The only solution is one of mutual respect and love. What follows is my attempt to bridge the gap and put us on the same page.

We all may have Roman Catholic friends (22 percent of America is Roman Catholic) and colleagues that we are in daily or regular contact within our sphere of influence, that God has made us responsible for as a witness.  The key is to meet them where they are and get to know them first. I do not have an ax to grind against the Romanist tradition or feel vengeance to "get even" or "even the score" for the so-called bitter Thirty Years' War between Protestants and Catholics (1618-1638) that practically destroyed Christendom in Western Europe, and ended in a stalemate and an edict of "toleration" and mutual recognition (Treaty of Westphalia). At one point even the Jews and Christians decided to "live and let live," to "agree to disagree," and stop feuding with each other, but to cease fire and seek peace.  We must love others into the kingdom of God!  Jesus said we'd be known by our love!  The Protestant Church wasn't officially recognized by Charles V until the Peace of Augsburg (1577).

Catholicism and Protestantism split subsequent to October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the Castle Church of Wittenberg, and was promptly summoned to the Diet of Worms to recant by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X, who declared him a heretic and excommunicated him.  He escaped by virtue of being kidnapped to Wartburg Castle and proceeded to translate the Bible into German (completed in 1534 and still a work of art in German prose to this day). And so the split in 1521, like that of the Western and Eastern Churches in 1054 to form the Orthodox Church, is almost 500 years in the making.  It was not the Protestants who condemned the Catholics, but vice versa (they were told to recant or be excommunicated).  Luther didn't intend to start a new denomination or church in his name--he only intended to reform, but this is what happened nevertheless.

The motto and spirit of the movement:  I dissent, I disagree, I protest (how we get Protestant). Luther continued the Protestant movement (known as Evangelicals or Lutherans) along with other reformers.  He had held to the Word of God, plain reason, and his conscience as his guide--the former monk and theology professor never recanted, but continued his reforms of Romanism until his death in 1546.

We are no longer at the mercy of church dogma.  Today, many believers in the Protestant faith have even already come full circle by submitting to everything their church says and decrees without question.  Remember the Bereans (cf. Acts 17:11), who were nobler than the Thessalonians who went home and searched these things out that Paul preached, and found out whether they were true. We are all believer-priests in the Christian church and have the Holy Spirit's illuminating ministry and the anointing to understand the Scriptures, and don't need a priest or teacher to tell us everything.

There is a fundamental difference between the way the Catholics and Protestants understand salvation which is called the doctrine of soteriology by theologians:  The former primarily see the instrumental means via the sacraments (viz., baptism and communion) of the Church, and the latter as through faith alone as the instrumental means.  The Catholics deemed the Church as necessary for salvation in Vatican Council II of 1962-1965.  Note that Catholics always refer to their denomination as "the Church" and NOTE:  Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."(Not through the  church!)  Roman Catholics declared non-Catholics to be "heretics," and that the "Church is necessary for salvation...  For it is through the Church alone...."  This Church likes to pronounce a curse on those that sincerely disagree or beg to differ, they cannot even agree to disagree by decree or council.

Grace is necessary, and faith is necessary, and even Christ is necessary, but not sufficient in Catholicism. They also acknowledge three varieties of merit that are being added to grace (at least congruous merit, but condign merit is obligatory to reward, and supererogatory merit is above and beyond the call of duty, such as martyrdom and can be shared with others to help them.)  They do not believe faith is adequate but works must be added to the faith to make it complete.  While Protestants generally all agree with the formula that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9)--which was one of the battle cries of the Reformation. However, the Catholics contradicted Jesus:  In 1891, Pope Leo the Twelfth declared, "No one can approach Christ except through the Mother [the Co-Mediator or Mediatrix and Co-Redeemer]."

Reacting: The Catholics were very upset at the Reformed dogma and summoned the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent from 1545-1563 to declare "anathema" or cursed anyone who believes in sola fide or faith alone (because they could not find the phrase "faith alone" in Scripture!). This council further alienated the Church by declaring tradition of equal authority as Scripture, and also that the Apocrypha was to be canonized.  In explanation:  James (cf. James 2:34), said we are justified by works and not by faith alone;  but he was saying that the kind of faith that doesn't produce good works or fruit is not saving faith, and is "dead."  Then the Reformers countered with their definition of saving faith with this formula:  We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.  This may seem like splitting hairs or nitpicking, but it makes you either a Protestant or Catholic by your stand on whether faith alone is adequate to save and consequently whether we have any right to "boast" in God's presence of any merit or work we have done. Faith is regarded as a meritorious work and not a gift, and this is the beginning of merit.   "Faith alone" became the rallying cry of the Reformation.

Now to get to our premise as to how we must love our Catholic friends:  We must not compromise our faith, water down, or domesticate the gospel to make it sound appealing to them, but we must stick to our guns and stand fast in the faith.  "The Lord's servant must not strive..." (2 Tim. 2:24).  We don't go out of our way to condemn them, but if the subject comes up we are to remain faithful to our credo and not try to gain their favor or be "people-pleasers" by sounding less abrasive or offensive to their standards.  Sometimes the truth hurts and convicts, and if we really belong to Christ, we must be willing to take a stand, willing to suffer the consequences of our cross to bear.

For example, in a Bible study, we don't go out of our way to point out the differences of doctrine, but if the subject comes up we are to tell it like it is in a loving way, and not waver or cower in our stand--there comes a time when we must and take our stand for Jesus--we must make it clear that it is not just our opinion, but that we can show from Scripture why we believe what we do; as another of the Reformer's mottoes was, sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), we must appeal alone to divine Scripture as our authority--not the Supreme Pontiff or the Pope, tradition, the Church, or even ourselves.

Most of all, we must realize that the best witness is a loving testimony that shows we aren't just trying to argue them into the kingdom (we can never argue someone into the faith), but we must wait for the open door that we have prayed for and take the cue to witness when called for, and do so humbly and honestly from the heart.  If they realize you really love them that is the best witness, not how brilliant we are. They don't care how much you know, till they realize how much you care.  The best way to love them is to tell them the truth and not live a lie or deny the truth.  By all means, never condemn them, nor tell them bluntly that they are not Christians, but let God do the convicting--John 16:8 says this is the Holy Spirit's domain.  We can never convert someone--only God can accomplish this task!

Note that I am not saying that you cannot be saved if you're a Catholic (I believe Mother Teresa of Calcutta is doubtless one of the closest saints to the Father), but some are saved despite their church dogma and not because of it (faith in the Catholic tradition means agreement or acquiescence with Church dogma or the official teachings of the Church per se). God has his "angels" in every church as a witness and testimony if people are looking for Him. Like Paul said to the Philippians:  "I want to know Christ ... [it is not our theory of soteriology that saves us, but Christ]."  It is the object (Christ) of faith that saves, not faith itself.  Feelings don't impress God, faith does (cf. Heb. 11:6).!


In conclusion:   A word to the wise is sufficient. There is such a thing as "dead orthodoxy" or having a well-thought-out theology and no spiritual life to match! The Pietists arose during the Reformation to neutralize this same situation.  You can be orthodox in your creed and not be saved, and wrong in your doctrine and be saved, because salvation is a relationship (knowing and believing in Christ) not a creed per se.  Creeds change over time as the church is semper reformanda or Latin for "always reforming" according to the Reformers; however, Christ never changes, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Let us learn to love Him more dearly, follow Him more nearly, and know Him more clearly!

The Gibraltar Of Christianity

"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God"  (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep"  (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).  

This is apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny).   God is no spectator or passive observer of humanity.  A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events.   As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men."  Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty Creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.

One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction.  It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility.  Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).

"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God"  (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep"  (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).

This is an apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny).  A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events.   As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men."  Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.

One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction.  It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility.  Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).

The crux of the Christian faith is its dependence on the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation and inception.  You must accept this fact or the whole faith is disemboweled.  The resurrection is the final proof that Christ's sacrifice was accepted, that there is a heaven to hope for and that Christ is the one and only Son of God.  This is the most crucial and vital fact of history--the most astonishing and fantastic fact, or it is the biggest and cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, according to Josh McDowell.  There is no middle ground; it is not a legend since there was not the time for it to develop until the gospels were written (probably before AD 70).  The historicity of Christ is beyond dispute by any reputable modern historian because it is vouched for by many secular forces as well as the internal testimony of the Word.

How do we know this as historical fact, though?  History, by its very nature, cannot be proved in a scientific manner (it's out of the realm of science because it's nonrepeatable).  How do we know that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth?  There are no witnesses alive today to verify it, but we do have documentation that is credible, and trustworthy.  We must assess the veracity of the records and the dependability of the eye-witnesses--consummate, inveterate liars, and lunatics or madmen are not reliable witnesses, no matter the number.

However, in the case of Scripture, we have four noblemen who lived in the times of skepticism and persecution for their faith, and they have the character that one could believe. We can believe the records written because they give no evidence of rantings and ravings of madmen.  Simon Greenleaf, a prof at Harvard, and one of the world's foremost authorities on legal evidence became a believer in Christ by examining the evidence and announced that, if an unbiased jury were to hear it, they would proclaim the resurrection as historical fact.  There certainly isn't a lack of evidence to support it, one must have preconceived ideas or prejudices to deny it.  The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart, and people feign intellectual problems as smokescreens to hide their moral rebellion and unwillingness to do God's will.

There is no way you can disprove it:  The opposite of the resurrection is not that people don't rise from the dead, but that God cannot raise the dead, specifically, that He cannot rise from the dead Himself.  All science can say is that people don't normally rise from the dead, all things being equal. There is no law that says so, it has just been observed that men normally die and conclusions were drawn.

Jesus predicted His resurrection and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to verify it: The appearances of Christ to doubting apostles, who had to be convinced against their better judgment (Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side) and they had become disillusioned, reverting to their former way of life, such as fishing; the many eyewitnesses that were alive when the gospels were written that could've dispelled the belief--it would be like someone saying that FDR claimed to be the Son of God today; one famous lawyer (Frank Morrison) asked the pivotal question, who moved the stone--it was guarded and heavy; one must account for the empty tomb and everyone knew where it was and could've checked it out; how do you explain the rise of the church that taught the resurrection, the martyrdom of thousands for the faith, when all they had to do to save their hide was deny this fact; the day of worship was changed from the Sabbath day to the Lord's day (and Jews practically had a fetish about this command); the grave clothes were undisturbed and this made an instant believer out of John, showing supernatural exit; and most convincing is the dramatic change in the lives of the apostles, going from timid and frightened to roaring lions for the faith.

The only way to dismantle Christianity is to disprove this historical fact and this has never been done, and cannot be done--it would raise more issues and questions than it solved--there's no legitimate evidence against it; only a preconceived notion that it's untrue brings doubt.

Note that the burden of proof falls on the party making the challenge that a document is not authentic or bogus (Socrates' dictum):  Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"  (Professor, an expert on law and evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard).  He also states:  "[That] the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in a y court of law." 

All the above are compelling, circumstantial evidence, and this kind of evidence is admissible in a court of law; however, no evidence can be conclusive in itself, but one must weigh it and go with the preponderance of the evidence--all the popular theories about how Christ didn't rise from the dead have been refuted and aren't believed seriously anymore by scholars (like that the disciples merely stole the body, and no one should believe the testimony of guards while they were asleep--this is not admissible evidence, and this tale circulated and the Jews believed it).

What is so compelling about the evidence and makes the gospel writers so credible?  They were willing to die for it and were in a position to know whether it was true--unlike radical Muslims dying for what they think is true--and people will gladly die for what they believe, but not for a known lie.  Finally, the integrity of the Scriptures is well-established and its reliability, authenticity, and faithful reproduction with utmost fidelity leaves no doubt that they have survived without being corrupted, as Islam claims.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Blind Faith...

 "...' You foolish people!  You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures" (Luke 24:25, NLT).
"...' O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!'"  (Ibid., NKJV).
"Therefore my people go into exile for lack of knowledge..." (Isaiah 5:13, ESV).
"...and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14, ESV).
"...There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land" (Hos. 4:1, ESV).
"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings"  (Hosea 6:6, ESV).
"Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD..." (Hosea 6:3, ESV).
"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."--Norman L. Geisler, noted biblical scholar

Note: Not knowing what you believe is a kind of unbelief or blind faith. 

Christians have sound reasons to have faith in Christ:  circumstantial evidence that is most compelling and unexplainable otherwise;  the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, especially through the Word of God (its inspiration, transmission, and canonicity); the objective, cumulative, historical evidence of the resurrection; plus the subjective experience ("Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good..." cf. Psalm 34:8, NKJV) and value of knowing Christ personally ("[N]ow that you have had a taste of the Lord's kindness" cf. 1 Peter 2:3, NLT).

Christianity is the only faith that is based on fact, not a fable, fiction, myth, old wives' tales, legend, or tall tale--if it's not a historical religion, it's nothing at all.  The historical evidence is further validated by the veracity of the witnesses, who were willing to go to their deaths for their faith. One usually tells the truth on one's deathbed.  It's not a matter of whether you believe the resurrection was possible, but are the historical records reliable, credible, dependable, and accurate?

The difference between them dying for their faith and other martyrs of different faiths is that they were in the position to know whether it was true.  Any faith not based on evidence is blind faith--even an atheist who doesn't know why he's one or has no evidence has blind faith.  It's not a battle or challenge between faith and reason, but which set of presuppositions one begins with and is willing to accept as true--secularists bet the farm on science being the only reliable source of truth.  Secularists are people of faith too!   If you say that you only believe what can be proved by the scientific method or empiricism, you must first begin by proving the validity of that premise.

Epistemological humility comes in to play where one admits he doesn't have a monopoly on the truth or know everything and is therefore teachable. In the final analysis, no preacher has cornered the market on truth and can speak ex-cathedra or pontificate.  Socrates said that to begin learning you must admit your ignorance!  Education is merely going from an unconscious to a conscious awareness of your ignorance.  Everyone must admit that they could be wrong--no one is infallible. 

Christians today are inclined to believe that their faith is indefensible, and don't know how to defend their faith or even know what they believe and should defend.  We must not let secularists win by default or by concession--we must stand our ground and declare our colors!  What is negotiable and what isn't?  We have sound reasons to believe; God doesn't expect us to believe despite the evidence.  God will reveal the truth to anyone who is willing to do His will (cf. John 7:17) and has an open mind, willing spirit, and needy heart.  God doesn't expect us to believe contrary to reason, but will manifest Himself to us if we search for Him--He is no man's debtor.

Faith is a gift but we must exercise it.  The problem is when we become lax in the faith or our faith is dead, we can do nothing (John 15:5 says, "For apart from Me you can do nothing"), that faith doesn't save; only a living and growing faith that produces fruit can save--no fruit, no faith, no salvation.  Saving faith is not a leap in the dark, but a step into the light--God asks no one to commit intellectual suicide and believe for the sake of believing alone (faith doesn't save, nor faith in faith, but only faith in Christ as the object saves).  Faith feeds on facts and experience, while Paul said in Romans 10:17, NKJV, concerning that precious faith:  "So then faith comes by hearing, and by hearing [i.e., preaching] by the word of God."  We must mature in the faith and have childlike, not childish faith; simple, but not simplistic!

Christians can have strong faith, but if they aren't able to defend it or have a reason for their faith, it's blind faith and may succumb to the devil's Anfectung or attack.  It's not how much faith, but the object of the faith that's vital-you can be sincerely wrong, though sincerity is a requisite.  We are always to be ready to have a reason for our hope (cf. 1 Peter 3:15).   In the study of apologetics, one will realize that Christians haven't kissed their brains goodbye, and that faith is rational, though Christianity isn't rationalism.  God had a rationale for sending His Son and the gospel is about realizing that work of grace is done on our behalf.

In sum, the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart; there's never enough evidence to convince the hardened skeptic, but there's ample evidence for the willing. Christians cannot argue someone into the kingdom!   But they should be able to have an answer as to why they believe (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15).  The problem is that some people catch their beliefs like one catches a cold: hanging around the right people and letting osmosis do its work.  Also, you don't have to be able to defend your faith to have one! However, you cannot rationalize God or put Him in a test tube or under laboratory conditions, because the existence of God is not in the scientific domain-- it takes faith and faith is what pleases God; skeptics are rarely convinced by debate--a work of grace must woo their hearts toward God.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Being Part Of The Answer

"My times are in your hand..." (Psalm 31:15, ESV).
"My future is in your hands..." (Ibid., NLT).
"The course of my life is in Your power..." (Ibid., HCSB).
" ...Now I will rescue you and make you both a symbol and a source of blessing..." (Zech. 8:13,   NLT). 
"...So I shall save you and you shall be a blessing..." (Ibid., NKJV). 
"I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt..." (Gen. 12:3, NLT). 

Some people are part of the problem or a detriment to others (prodigal, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, means being wasteful or lost), while others are a blessing and asset to have as a company, or being part of the solution!  I'm not necessarily talking about being the life of the party, but about being a conduit or channel of God's grace and blessings. We all have gifts given as the Holy Spirit wills (cf. 1 Cor. 12:11,18) and are responsible for their faithful stewardship.  

I'm talking about any type of resource:  time; money; talent; spiritual gifts; property and possessions; real estate; opportunity; friendships; relationships; business associates and colleagues; education or training; knowledge, wisdom, and understanding from God, ad infinitum. In God's eyes were all richly endowed and once we've experienced it we want to pass it on!  Be the one to make a difference! Stand up and be counted, don't sit on the sidelines, instead, fly your Christian colors!

God only blesses us in order to be a blessing to others, not just to hoard for ourselves: a pastor is given discernment and insight into the Word to give a message to enlighten the flock, not just for his own edification.  All of us are blessed by God: some in all ways, but all in some ways (cf. Psalm 145:9)--God even blesses and prospers the wicked.  If we are successful, we owe it to God, it's not our own doing (cf. Isa. 30:18; Psalm 84:11).  Deut. 8:17-18 says plainly, "He did all this so you would never say to yourself, 'I have achieved this wealth with my own strength and energy.'  Remember the LORD your God, He is the one who gives you the power to be successful, in order to fulfill the covenant..." (NLT).  Isaiah 48:17, ESV, says, "..'I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.'"  The trouble with most people is that they give themselves credit for success and blame God for failure (cf. Prov. 19:3, NLT, says, "People ruin their lives by their own foolishness and then are angry at the LORD.").

We are not called to be a burden on society (everyone can pay back something from his blessings), but to find meaning, purpose, and fulfillment in contributing our share of the pie that God has given us--the cards dealt us in the form of provision or blessings.  If a person has a lot of time on his hands, for instance, though he is poor, may find fulfillment in making use of it for the Lord (redeeming the time) and investing it in others.  Seize the moment!   We can do only a few things with time, and God allows all of us our fair share, and they include:  wasting it; making it; investing it; and spending it.  In one sense we are all living on borrowed time! So spend it on something that will outlast you!  Prayer, for example, is never a waste of time, but an investment with immediate and long-term dividends and payoffs.

When we make use of the gifts God does give us, He grants more accordingly.  If you pass on insights God gives you, you will receive more!  Faithful use of time grants more time also to use for God.  Be a time manager!  After all, the end result of our blessings should be to use them to invest in the kingdom of God.  God blesses us financially so we can be financial support to those in need, to remember the poor, not to live lavishly or luxuriously.  If you have a musical talent that is untapped, get with it, and invest it in the service of God!  Using your spiritual gift faithfully will bring more opportunities and blessings.  Some people have opportunities to witness to people of influence or the rich and famous, and God may honor them with fruit that can be a blessing to the church at large.

Zech. 8:13 says that God will save us in order that we can be a blessing!  God has His glory in mind when we get saved and sees how to plant us for a harvest--so bloom where you are planted!  Some people may wonder why God saved them; they may be the only ones that can reach a certain niche or group that relates to them.  God may save a nurse to be a light to doctors!  God may save a professor to be a light to his students!  J. R. R. Tolkien was saved so he could bring his colleague, C. S. Lewis, to the Lord, who was a skeptic like Tolkien used to be, and they could relate to each other.

It is important for our mindset to realize that we are mere stewards of God's blessings (but this only makes sense to the faithful), and everything ultimately belongs to Him.  This life is but a staging area to see how we handle God's grace and provision.  It is also vital to realize that when we are faithful in our stewardship, we honor and bless God!  According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the "chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."  Isaiah 49:3, ESV, promises, "...' You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'"  We are all created for His glory in Isaiah 43:7, ESV:  "[E]veryone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."

Bringing blessing to God is more than lip service, going through the motions, uttering empty phrases or vain repetitions, or mouthing the words, but living it out: the faith you have is the faith you show; our lives are to bring glory to God by being worthy of our Lord and our calling--showing faithfulness cannot be divorced from faith.     Soli Deo Gloria!