God's Plan For Our Lives

"A wise person is hungry for knowledge, while the fool feeds on trash" (Prov. 15:14, NLT).
"The wise are mightier than the strong, and those with knowledge grow stronger and stronger" (Prov. 24:5, NLT).  
"Knowledge is power."--Sir Francis Bacon
"...' My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'" (Isa. 46:10, ESV).  
"[F]or I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope" (Jer. 29:11, ESV).

Many Bible teachers point to the famed Bible verse, Jer. 29:11, as indicated to God's eternal plan for believers.  To deny that God has a purpose for our lives and a plan is to deny the eternal decrees of God--Psalm 139:16 denotes God's intricate detailing of our lives.  Stoic philosophy went so far as to not only posit God having a plan but that it is our chief good and aim to accept it without reservation in a sort of grin and bear it philosophy.

Antithetical to adhering to God having a plan for us is the humanistic view that we are the master of our fate and the captain of our soul per Invictus by William Ernest Henley.  Our duty is not to believe in a dogma of a "stiff upper lip" nor to merely grin and bear in time, but to work out our salvation with fear and trembling per Philippians 2:13 and to make good on our destiny, noting that this is not blind fate or kismet (Islam version), but a personal dealing with God whereby we cooperate in His grace on our behalf.  It is never too late to accomplish God's best for us, if we are yielded to Him and willing to do His will wholeheartedly (cf. 2 Chron. 16:9).

According to 2 Cor. 1:20, all the promises are fulfilled and amen in Christ Jesus.  When God gave a promise specifically to Abraham, it has immediate consequences for him as well as long term, but there are also mediate applications for the believer who is the legitimate "son of Abraham," the father of the faithful.  Sometimes we have to realize a symbolic or indirect fulfillment of a promise, but it's still inherent in God's Word, which cannot come back void but will be fulfilled. 

In other words, all promises apply in some sense or degree.  This verse is aimed at Israel and its future as God's people, and so they seem to think that you cannot interpret it for personal application.  It is wrong to say, "This verse means this to me, regardless of what it means at face value." That is to become mystical and close to believing the Bible becomes the Word of God upon having an existential experience or encounter with it.  You must interpret Scripture with Scripture, and according to this principle, God does have a plan for us to have a more abundant life in Christ, according to John 10:10.

God even has a plan for the wicked and a purpose for them in the day of evil (cf. Prov. 16:4).  Job 23:14, NLT, says quite plainly, without any play on words, in the plain sense that God had a plan for Job and a destiny to fulfill ("For he will do to me whatever he has planned.  He controls my destiny").  The error arises when we think that God wants to always prosper us in the material sense, thinking that spirituality is the means to financial gain--an idea opposed by Paul in 1 Timothy 6.  We must learn to be content with what we have and enjoy the blessing God gives us--this is how we find God's calling to use the blessing bestowed and His provision granted by grace.  We are to be faithful to what God has given us in due measure, and not to have gift envy or to think God is being unfair.

Jer. 29:11 says God has no evil in mind for us, and our trials are meant to increase our faith and to give us character through adversity, not to harm us!  Indeed, Paul was right on when he mentioned in Rom. 8:28 that God works all things together for our good, but sometimes we don't' realize it till much later.  The original issue is whether we can apply texts to ourselves that are not directly addressed to us, especially promises.  

The point to note is that we ought to look for general principles of God's character that are immutable and that might apply to us in particular.  In one sense, Christians are God's people now and God has cast aside Israel till the Day of the Lord in the last days, and it is true that we are the seed of Abraham according to Gal. 3:29.  One of the privileges of being the seed of Abraham is to share in his blessings and to claim promises of God in Christ's name.

We are not capable of frustrating or thwarting God's plan; even the episode of temptation in the Garden of Eden was going according to plan and didn't take God by surprise--He's planned our redemption from eternity.  "...' As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand" (Isa. 14:24, ESV).  Again:  "For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it?  His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?" (Isa. 14:27, ESV). 

Indeed, as Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716) wrote that this is "the best of all possible worlds," and just as Wycliffe's tenet similarly says, "Everything comes to pass of necessity" so there's no Plan B: God cannot fail and doesn't need a backup, because He's taken every contingency and exigency into consideration and cannot be thwarted!      Soli Deo Gloria!

Using Religious Knowledge As A Weapon

"The wise is hungry for knowledge, while a fool feeds on trash" (cf. Prov. 15:14).
"Brothers and sisters, I urge you to watch out for people who create divisions and problems against the teaching that you learned.  Keep away from them.  People like that aren't serving the Lord.  They are serving their own feelings.  They deceive the hearts of innocent people with smooth talk and flattery"  (Romans 16:17-18, CEB).
"Don't be misled by the many strange teaching out there..." (Heb. 13:9, CEB).
BY DEFINITION, KNOWLEDGE IS JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF.

A love for the Word is a blessing and a sign of salvation, but an unbalanced, dissentious, and contentious appetite and spirit can be deleterious to personal spiritual hygiene and even to the body of Christ.  The Bible was written to give us eternal life and to know God in salvation, not to merely increase our knowledge.  The purpose of Scripture, then, is to change our lives, and enlighten the soul, not merely make us wise in our own eyes, or to have information to pick fights--the purpose of books about the Bible must strive to do likewise.

Books help us understand ourselves, others, the world, and God, but shouldn't be looked upon as just giving us information or facts--all knowledge must be compared to the biblical truth though.  If one merely reads books about the Bible to sow discord among brothers or to find ways to play one-upmanship in knowledge, one is on the wrong track. There are gray areas and we are to respect the weaker brother and what he believes as Augustine said, "In nonnegotiables, unity; in negotiables, liberty; in all things, charity."

The stronger believer needs to grow in love, while the weaker in knowledge.  There are many areas of disagreement in the church and we are not to use our knowledge to upset some one's faith.  Knowledge is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.  Knowledge can puff up and give one pride, so we must always bear in mind that we don't know as we ought to know when we think we know it all--for instance, we don't study just to know all the answers--God is the Great Answerer and we must know Him.  Some brethren read controversy books just to do power games with each other and try to match wits with one another.  The Word is meant to be a seed to sow unto life in Christ, not to sow discord, which is one of the sins God most despises.

We simply have the wrong attitude if we think we are so smart that we can outwit our brother and that makes us superior in some way, God can speak through children, much more can He humble scholars and philosophers by their wisdom.  The Bible makes it clear that we are a fool if we think we are wise in our own eyes, that means God shuns wise guys!  They are not a cut above others, who are poor specimens.  God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble (cf. 1 Pet. 5:5; James 4:6).  We are to respect one another and that means we must have the attitude we can learn from them.

Knowledge, wisdom, and understanding come from God and are the byproduct of knowing Him and walking with Him, not of graduating from a school and thinking it's an automatic fruit--many fools graduate from college who are later humbled by the street smarts of the average Joe.  There is a spiritual gift of knowledge and even of wisdom though.  I have been challenged to answer debatable topics in the Bible that sincere believers can disagree about and have refused to go there and play along just to keep the peace.  There comes a time when we agree to disagree and press on in friendship without thinking that winning an argument enhances our spirituality.  Our knowledge is not meant to build walls and find disharmony, but to build bridges with the brethren and to unite us in the Spirit--"for we are one in the Spirit."

Caveat:  Shun the argumentative, dissentious brother who is playing mind games or is on a power trip and has no interest in learning the truth. The Christian walk is not about winning arguments or becoming contentious, argumentative, judgmental, or divisive, for you can win a dispute and lose a friend and we are to be fishers of men and win them over, not scatterers of the sheep! One must beware when he's generating more heat than light and when belaboring the point isn't worth the adrenaline.  Hopefully, you won't be accused of sophism or specious reasoning because a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still, the maxim goes.

In any confrontation, remember this key principle from John Stott:  "We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity."  And in the final analysis, the brother interested in knowledge for its own sake or to impress someone should examine his motives and find out whether they are pure and he desires to serve God with his knowledge or to merely use it as a weapon for personal gain and to boost his ego. Knowledge cannot be its own aim or an end in itself.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is There A Second Great Commission?

Gov. William Bradford came to the New World to "advance the kingdom of Christ," while many pilgrims sought religious freedom and the Puritans organized to purify the church.  America was the first "safe haven" and refuge for the religiously persecuted ever founded, and the State of Maryland was the first colony in America to grant Catholics freedom of worship and sanction when they were persecuted.  We are to be good citizens promoting the general welfare and be a blessing (cf. Jer. 29:7; Prov. 11:11). 

"If we are not governed by God, we will be ruled by tyrants." (William Penn). 

I didn't know that the government was ever meant to be the methodology of hastening the Lord's Day or ushering in the kingdom of God, and many preachers have stressed the notion that the Bible is not meant to reform society but to save souls.  It's true that Common Law has found origins in Scripture, and our national heritage is dominated by Christian worldview.  

It is individual believers who act as salt and light to preserve society from evil, but the church's job description is to reform souls, not society!  The church ought to be in the business of showing the way and saving those who've lost the way.  What do you think early believers were known as?  They were followers of the Way!  The way that churches have organized as if our faith depended upon it seems, like overturning Roe v Wade, et al, and other social reforms, such as the Second Great Commission--redeeming and reclaiming our nation for Christ!

The church at large is being deceived and Satan loves it when they get their eyes off the Great Commission (our marching orders) and get a bad rap as the unbelievers see them as nothing but hypocrites.  We must focus on preaching the gospel as keeping the main thing the main thing not getting sidetracked, and not establishing a sort of Christian Sharia law, in that they are forcing the infidel or pagan to live like a Christian, even observing the Law of Moses.  Attempts at this type of sincere Christian venture have repeatedly failed throughout history.  The government is not a necessary evil, but necessary because of evil according to Augustine, and would probably not be necessary if we were all Christians.  Believers are to work in the system, like running for office, but especially in prayer and intercession for our leaders and all in authority.

Christians do Christ no favor by giving the impression they are all zealous (bigots) enforcing the law their way and alienating those who are near the kingdom of God but become prejudiced by their experience with the religious right.  Not all sincere and mature believers are on the so-called right and Christ would never associate with any party or let Himself be labeled or categorized as such.  It is worse than sectarian spirit (party spirit destroys a church from within), which Paul criticized. 

If it is wrong for Muslim states to enforce their faith on Christians and forbid them from even wearing crosses on their lapels or holding public Bible studies, as is the case in Saudi Arabia, then how can Christians mimic this type of enforcement of their views and interpretation of unbelievers?  Nearly every great social reform and cause in history have been the result of Christian influence, from the abolition of slavery to women's rights, to equal justice under the law, to the abolition of child labor, and whatnot, but the church didn't organize en masse to force change, individuals settled the matter, those who made a difference with their witness and testimony, and especially tenacity and stick-to-itiveness like the long-suffering efforts of  William Wilberforce in eliminating slavery in Great Britain.

What we don't want is for unbelievers to stereotype Christians as being against this and that, instead of being for this and that--we prove the love of Christ by our love and tolerance, not pressure techniques and scare tactics like voter intimidation which is common in the South.  They actually are convinced that hounding the gays out of the military will bring God's endorsement to our nation and restore traditional Christian values and consequent blessing to our nation.  Since when does Christ order us to organize politically or to use government itself as the means of advancing God's kingdom, which is not of this world according to Jesus?

Leave ushering in the kingdom of God to Jesus and let us be here to prepare hearts for the onslaught of secular worldviews out there in academia, government, entertainment, and media so that our youth are not corrupted by false ideology and don't learn to see things from a divine perspective.  It is very tempting to use the leverage of political power to create a sort of utopia for believers, but this is not what we are here for.   Isn't the real Christian agenda the upholding of the rule of law and the principle that no one is above the law (justice in action)? 

After all, when the foundations are destroyed the righteous may not be able to find the solution (cf. Psalm 11:3):  Government is not the problem nor the solution!   The government is founded to keep evil at bay and to establish law and order in society--ensuring justice and securing our rights.  What about fighting the abuse of power and the spirit of authoritarianism?  The Christian agenda cannot be defined by one law, no more than you can put God in a box.  It seems to the unbeliever that there are just certain sins that offend Christians more than others when they have sins themselves.  The problem is man's depravity and the solution is the gospel through the grace and mercy of God.  In our nation, there is violence everywhere, due mainly to the accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, and Christians may have to decide whether they put their trust in God or the sanctity of the Second Amendment, knowing that no right is absolute, not even free speech, freedom of religion, nor the right to bear arms.

"We must obey God rather than men" (cf. Acts 5:29) and there comes a time when civil disobedience is not only a right but a duty and opportunity to stand for Christ in the public arena.  Individual believers like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have sought civil rights through nonviolence and suffered the consequence--he got himself killed just like Mahatma Gandhi, the founder of nonviolent protest.  But where there's a clear-cut command in Scripture we must fly our Christian colors and take our stand--only the coward stands aside according to James Russell Lowell. 

We cannot sit on the fence and claim neutrality on vital Christian issues.  The best work is done by individual believers called by God to accomplish His will, not the church at large.  William Wilberforce never organized the Church of England and Martin Luther King, Jr. never called for the church to aid his agenda as role models.

There's a Second Great Commission in a sense, but not a social gospel to preach though, and we must focus on what we are here for--spreading the gospel and being examples that they may see we are Christians by our love, not our political views, and the church ought to be careful not to organize as being officially for any party or political cause so as to be identified and labeled with anything but as being followers of Christ, not a political leader.   Whatever we do as a body of Christ ought to be done in the name of Christ and not to promote any party, or even party spirit, within or without the church.  

One great evil misconstruing this movement has precipitated and facilitated is the Postmodern worldview of truth and the creation of an alternative universe (of "facts"), not seen since the days of Joseph Goebbels, the notorious Nazi propaganda chief.  We have a right to our own opinions but not to cherry-pick our own facts, though everyone tends to just believe the facts that suit their own worldview. 

Many Americans in this generation now are convinced that character counts for nothing and leaders are no longer our role models--all that matters is AGENDA AND PLATFORM and it doesn't matter how it's achieved either; i.e., the ends justify the means.  

IN SUM, THERE'S NO LEGITIMATE SOCIAL GOSPEL PER SE OR ANY SOCIAL COMMISSION, BUT THERE IS SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY.   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Blessed Assurance Of Salvation Is A Duty

"... Do not be unbelieving, but believing" (cf. John 20:27).
"For the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God" (cf. Rom. 8:16).
"For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day" (cf. 2 Tim. 1:12).
"... [B]e all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure" (2 Pet. 1:10, ESV).


We don't find out we're saved because we're curious, but because we are commanded to do so in 2 Pet. 1:10, but it's not an automatic fruit of salvation, even if one's faith is alive and growing--for dead faith or faith minus works doesn't save (cf. James 2:20), and we are commanded to examine ourselves as to whether Christ is in us on a regular basis to reassure ourselves. (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).  It is not the preacher's duty or job description (nor any authority figure's for that matter) to give assurance of salvation--they can only reassure, but one must trust in the Word as a conviction and couple it with the assurance of the Holy Spirit as dual or joint assurance.

We must learn the lesson to take God at His Word, once the initial highs and feelings have left us (when normalcy sets in) and the feelings of our initial response to salvation when God is testing the validity and reality of our faith, which is more precious than gold and silver and must be confirmed by fire.  If we don't have any assurance, we will be paralyzed in our walk and stunted in growth, not able to walk forward with Christ in faith, but treading water and even going backward.  This assurance is meant to enhance our sanctification and to be a boon to our experience in Christ.

R. C. Sproul said that to gain authentic assurance we must "search our own hearts and examine the fruit of our faith."  And also that "the Word of God coupled with the testimony of the Holy Spirit" is God's normative methodology of assurance.  When we are fully assured we will never succumb to doubt, having on our helmet of salvation, because it will be a done deal and we can overcome the Anfectung (Luther's German for attack) of Satan.  Let's be leery of being like those who waver in the faith and are rebuked and chided by Jesus, "Oh you of little faith!"

Note that no one has to have perfect assurance nor perfect faith in this life to get saved, or it wouldn't be called faith but knowledge.  If someone says he has no doubts, he's never been tested in his faith or doesn't know himself well, for faith is not the same as knowledge of which we will inherit in glory.  NB:  you will never have smoking-gun evidence that you can be as assured as certain as you see the sunshine in the sky, for we are commanded to walk by faith and not by sight in 2 Cor. 5:7.  You don't need all the answers to believe or make a decision for Christ!  We believe as God helps our unbelief (cf. Mark 9:24). Doubts are like antibodies in the body, everyone has them, even healthy ones.  But we believe despite them.  Goethe said to tell him their certainties because he had enough doubts of his own!

We are to "taste and see that the LORD is good," so that we can existentially know and experience God in the spiritual world and dimension by faith. One of God's chief complaints and pet peeves is that man doesn't have the "knowledge of God" (cf. Hos. 4:1,6).  Later cf. Hosea 6:3 says to let us know, let us "go on to know the LORD."  We can sincerely pray for God to increase our faith, and God does commend strong faith, but it isn't the amount of faith that saves, but the object (faith doesn't save, Christ does, or it is fideism, faith in faith).   There are degrees of certitude and the faith/doubt continuum varies throughout one's spiritual journey.

Many preachers dichotomize salvation's security from its assurance in the here and now--these must never be divorced for they are two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist logically without the other (if you can lose it, how can you ever have full assurance and know you won't slip into sin?).  We say in theology that we can indeed distinguish these doctrines, but cannot separate them--they are two sides of the same coin (the flip side).

Roman Catholics will tell you that assurance is a pure sin of presumption unless you've had a special revelation or experience with God to assure you, but it's not conjecture nor presumption, it's doable and a duty.  It's true, as some may point out, that some leave the faith, but these were never genuine believers in the first place according to 1 John 2:19.  Orthodox doctrine says that we persevere in the faith as God preserves us, for if it weren't for grace, none of us would survive spiritually.

The biggest problem in the church regarding this issue is not patience with struggling believers who have doubts, but bearing with those who presume and have false assurance, for assurance must be biblical and based on sound doctrine or dogma.   And so people can be ignorant of Scripture or aren't taking God at His Word--or they may simply be going by feelings. We are accountable for the faith bestowed on us to be faithful to it and grow fruit accordingly (cf. Rom. 12:3), and our faith must not be feigned or hypocritical, but sound and sincere--i.e., albeit not perfect (cf. 1 Tim. 1:5).

In sum, the best assurance is to claim the promises of God as one's spiritual birth certificate, like one of mine in John 6:37 that says, "He who comes to Me I will in no way cast out." FIND YOUR OWN SPIRITUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR PASSAGE THAT SPEAKS TO YOUR OWN HEART AND SITUATION.     Soli Deo Gloria!

Refuting The Mumbo-Jumbo Gobbledygook Of Postmodernism

"Christians with faith have nothing to fear from the facts."--Paul Johnson, historian
"... [B]ecause they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess. 2:10, ESV).
"... Yea, hath God said, ..?" (Gen. 3:1, KJV).
"What is truth" (cf. Pontius Pilate, John 18:38).
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, ... correcting his opponents with gentleness.  God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26, ESV).  

Postmodernism is the ultimate skeptical philosophy, saying that reality cannot be known absolutely and adhering to a "hermeneutic of suspicion" on all knowledge, especially any worldview that claims a "God's-eye" view of the world.  To claim you cannot discern, find, or know truth is in itself a truth claim!  Just like the typical prof that introduces his class to the so-called faith that you cannot know anything for certain, and is sure of it, so also every Postmodern precept can be shown to be gobbledygook.  You can't know anything?  How do they know?  Allan Bloom, in his book The Closing of the American Mind, said that when they say all truth is relative, that statement is also relative and therefore the whole presupposition has no truth value and is inherently contradictory.  When they say that there are no absolutes, are they saying that's absolute?  When they say there is no truth, is that true?  Denying that your claim has any power over them, are they claiming their claim should have power over you?  When they say, as their favorite catchphrase says, "That may be true for you, but not for me!" Is that statement true for both of you?

When they say God is dead, how can they know He will not rise again and that there isn't a God who will not die despite their beliefs?  They're admitting God was once alive! One couldn't postulate that without knowing God (no longer necessary to answer our questions or problems), really they're the ones who are dead.  Nietzsche said that "we have killed him," referring to God, but what kind of God gets killed by mortals?  Actually, Christianity is alive more than ever and Nietzsche, the patron saint of Postmodernism, is dead and Christianity's God will not die!   How would they know He's dead?  Can they disprove God's existence or relevance?  Sometimes the avoidance of an issue or its denial only proves its reality.

There is a real "Death of God" movement going on:  the suppression and repression of sound Bible doctrine, seeing orthodox teachings as unattainable and even inherently unknowable.  In the latter days, many will depart from the faith or bail out theologically and give heed to seducing spirits according to 1 Timothy 4:1.  This attack from within is far more lethal than from the secular world without.

When they challenge us:  "Where's this God of yours?"  Counter:  "Where isn't He?"  When they insist that all spiritual talk of God is meaningless, how meaningful is that?  Of course, they deny the existence of the spiritual.  Ask them:  is any spiritual talk meaningful? Is there a spiritual?   And in what way is or isn't God-talk meaningful?  When they complain that it's just your interpretation, ask them if they like it when they're misunderstood, if only your view matters? When they say the Bible is nonsense, ask them what it's the main message is.  When they say you can't find out spiritual truth, ask them how they found that out!   When they insist we cannot know God, ask them how they know that!   When they say that truth can only be known by experience, what experience led them to conclude that?  Can they prove it?  When they say we shouldn't take the preacher's advice on Bible matters, whose advice should we take?  Should we take their advice?

My premise is that every "hermeneutic of suspicion" (i.e., "you can know nothing for certain") is inherently unintelligible and a contradiction in terms.  To posit all truth as relative, one must stipulate: relative to what?  Indeed, "All truth is God's truth" and "meets at the top," according to Augustine and Aquinas respectfully!  We must start with God to know and explain anything (Prov. 1:7, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..."), and therefore God cannot be dead or irrelevant.  Knowledge begins somewhere!  Everyone starts with some presupposition they cannot prove, and Christians assume God, just like secularists assume God isn't.  The simple fact is that they won't let a "Divine Foot in the door" and rule God out of the equation from the get-go and any evidence for God discredits their whole worldview, which is an anti-worldview because they say one cannot have a "God's-eye" view or knowledge of anything in the real world--reality is indiscernible and even an illusion.

There is a place for healthy skepticism, but to assume you can know nothing is counterproductive to learning.  To learn about God, you must assume God is and there is something to learn!  Can you use Postmodern techniques to validate Postmodernism?  It seems the only truths they are adamantly against are Christian ones and have declared war on God, not that they just don't believe in Him.  If there is no God, why be afraid of Him or His influence?  Postmodernism goes back to at least the cynicism of Pontius Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?" (Cf. John 18:38).  Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and any one of the truth hears His voice.  Jesus also personified truth and claimed:  "I am the truth" [incarnate or its avatar]."

When we undermine the very foundation of truth, we destroy the basis of all knowledge and learning.  The Bible claims to be our Answer book and to give us all relevant knowledge for an abundant life as a believer in Christ.  Not acknowledging the truth leads to despair and cynicism and to the abandonment of all meaningful research and educational endeavors.  Unbelievers, according to Rom. 2:8, are those who "reject the truth."  They refuse to love the truth and so be saved (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10).

The self-evident refutation of Postmodernism is to take them up on their play on words, by asking intriguing questions that challenge their soundness: is that your opinion?  How do you know that's true?  What if you are wrong?  Where do you get your information?  How did you reach that conclusion?  If that's a judgment, or is that your judgment?  Is it always true that there's no truth?  These so-called comebacks are answers to self-refuting claims, which are false by definition if the question's premise is true.

Postmodernism denies any absolute, universal truth, or at least knowable such truth, and is the basis for modern Sophism or nonsense in a philosophical sense.  They believe in one absolute: there are no absolutes!  How do they know there are not two absolutes, and how do they posit this one absolute as the only valid one?   When they say you cannot communicate truth, ask them how they communicated that.  When they assert that your truth has no power over them, how can they know that for sure and is that true for you? Is their truth supposed to have power over you?  If Postmodernism were true, how could we know it using their techniques?  And we would never know it--this is the epitome of nonsensical hermeneutics and the honest pursuance of knowledge.  Postmodernists are atheists by consequence of there being no worldview possible, not by conviction as Secular Humanists are, and when they say there's no God, tell them that their unbelief has no power or influence of reality or over you. When they insist you can know nothing for certain, counter how they know that.  Belief has no relativity to truth!

DON'T RULE GOD OUT FROM THE GET-GO; HE'S MAKING A COMEBACK INTO RELEVANCY AND THE EQUATION OF LIFE!  Current academia is more interested in what facts work for them or what truths they are willing to accept that the objective, universal, absolute truths that are valid whether accepted and believed or not.   Caveat:  Postmodernists deny facts as real, objective, absolute, or relevant, and when you admit you have them or want the facts, they just say you're trying to exert power over them--what are they doing?   Notice that you can reverse the tone and spirit of the question, neutralizing it's relevance, with an appropriate follow-up question!   The problem with believers is that they are giving up on their worldview--it hasn't failed--they are just conceding by default, having not been prepared to fight in the devil's battlefield and turf and thus not inoculated against his strategies.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Sacrificial Love Displayed At Calvary Extraordinaire

It is said that the biological father makes a so-called contribution to the pregnancy--his seed--but the mother makes the sacrifice!  Her whole life is changed--sometimes ruined--while to him it's just a minor inconvenience or interruption!  She can't really get out of it, but often the man escapes and divorces or abandons the woman, even with the kids.  Most men see their sole role as being the basic breadwinner, provider, or the one charged to bring home the bacon, while the wife is to raise the kids and do all the legwork as it were.  This is because love is oft spelled T-I-M-E!  As they say: a woman's work is never done.  Parents have a lot invested in their children and the more investment, the deeper love; you can give without love, but you cannot love without giving. 

True sacrifice is when you suffer or give up something, not when you do something you would've done despite the benefits.  The ultimate sacrifice is really only done in the line of duty when a soldier gets killed in action, for example.  This compares to Christ making the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf at the cross because He didn't have to die at all if He hadn't chosen to save us by His substitutionary death.  The sacrificial type of living is when we live for others and not ourselves, and think of others first and what we can do for them, not what they can do for us.

Christ's atonement on the cross has been rightly termed the "mother of all sacrifices," in that it costs the most and also accomplished the most as a result--it was the infinite worth of the death of the Lamb of God and it accomplished our priceless, eternal redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, justification, and complete salvation.  To elaborate on the multifaceted atonement:  we were redeemed from the slave market of sin--the penalty was paid; we were justified in the court of God's law--becoming righteous; we were reconciled back into God's family with the relationship restored, and we have been propitiated in God's temple in that God paid the price to set us free and avert us from His wrath.

We behold, therefore, God's love manifested and in full display at the cross, whereby He gave all of Himself till it literally hurt and He actually did bleed on our behalf--we must likewise give of ourselves--noting God wants us, not our achievements, and not just what God gives us to be stewards of, as we go about "contributing to the needs of the saints."  Christ gave it all for us, and our crosses pale in comparison to His, as He doesn't ask us to give of anything He didn't accomplish Himself in exempting Himself of no pain nor suffering, we could possibly imagine. 

In sum, true love is always sacrificial, some people have never made any sacrifice for anything, especially the offering of our blood, sweat, and tears and we ought to challenge ourselves with the question of whether our love is inherently sacrificial--having something to lose--or is it just contributory, but going above and beyond the call of duty:  this means we ought to give till it hurts, not just what we can afford, for it to be sacrificial, and that necessities not giving God our leftovers of time, resources, energy, opportunities, money, interests, passions, abilities, experiences, talents, gifts, relationships, and what not, but putting Him in first place amongst our priorities--rearranging everything to His agenda!   Soli Deo Gloria!