Who Does Jesus Think He Is?

"And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes"  (Mark 1:22, ESV).

"The officers answered, Never man spake like this man" (John 7:46, KJV), who reported to the authorities.  Jesus was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (cf. John 10:33), even claiming that the Father and Him were one [in essence].  In one sense the triune God is a threesome or three (in one), but in another, it is a unity of one being with three persons in a relationship.  Elohim, the plural of God (El) is used by God in Genesis and God refers to Himself as a unity of one in Deut. 6:4, using the Hebrew echad, meaning one as in a cluster or unity.  They are one in Spirit and one in purpose and will, but three in self-distinction and personality.

Jesus didn't go around advertising that He was the Son of David, or the Son of God, though He never denied it (He was forced to confess it at His trial as the Son of the Blessed One). Note that with all due respect to the founders of all the other world religions, only Jesus claimed to be God (cf. John 8:58, says, "Before Abraham was, I AM" and  John 8:24 really says, "Unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins" and in John 14:9 He says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"), and this is why the authorities despised and hated Him and were jealous of His powers and influence of the people--they knew what He was claiming!  "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him..." (John 11:48, ESV).

Jesus usually used figures of speech, but He didn't always beat around the bush by indirect claims but spoke plainly enough for his disciples to recognize Him as the Messiah or Christ the Lord.  Peter confessed Him as the Son of God.  His favorite title for Himself was Son of Man (cf. Daniel 7:13), showing Him identifying with us as the Messiah, as this was a known messianic title from Daniel. George Gordon, Lord Byron said that "if ever man was God, or God man, Jesus Christ was both." He wasn't half God and half man, but the God-man (theanthropos in Greek), being all God and all man in one permanent incarnation or personification.  Some find it incredible to believe a man could become God or deified, but they can accept the historical fact of the incarnation when God became man! They besought Him to tell them plainly and He did, but they wouldn't listen or understand. John 12:37 says that even though he performed many signs, they would not (not could not) believe in Him.

The most striking aspect of His teaching and some just saw Him as a good teacher ("... Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God:  for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him"  (John 3:2, KJV). It is patronizing to think of Him only as a good teacher or moral leader or even martyr for a good cause--these are not valid options to consider concerning Him.  "You call Me Lord and teacher, and so I am."  He never prefaced His teachings with "thus saith the Lord" but directly said it as if speaking as God, not for God.  He didn't speak by authority, but with authority, and no man ever spoke so audaciously before; others would commonly quote the authorities, like renowned and learned teachers and Pharisees.  When He spoke it was not introduced by phrases like "It is said," but "I say unto you."  The critics would just mutter, 'Who does He think He is?"  In respect to His teaching:  "[F]or he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not their scribes"  (Matt. 7:29, ESV).

About calling Himself the Son of God and not denying it (John 1:49 says, "... Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel"), He pointed out that we are all sons of God in the sense of being His creatures and challenged them: who was David's Son? When He referred to Himself as the Son of Man, the Pharisees knew very well that this was a messianic title and just who He was claiming to be.  Indeed, the teachers and Pharisees got the message and weren't as clueless as they pretended--they even remembered that He predicted His resurrection, which the disciples didn't understand or anticipate.  Even Nicodemus, the so-called "teacher of Israel," didn't know where He was coming from at first, but after the encounter at night came over to sympathize with His cause, and took His side--even helping to anoint and bury Him.

Normally you don't believe someone who makes claims of deity or divinity which they can't substantiate (Father Divine of Philadelphia, now deceased, and Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church of Korea and whose followers are called Moonies, for instance), but Jesus' claims were consistent with his credentials and the witness of signs and wonders.  There have been numerous wannabes and would-be messianic figures, but they are easily dismissed.   If Jesus had been a devil, a madman, sincerely deceived teacher, or a liar, wouldn't the disciples had figured it out and had Him pegged after three years of close contact; familiarity normally breeds contempt!

People will die for what they believe is true, but these men were in a position to know the truth, fanatics and religious extremists aren't.  Napoleon thought he could conquer Europe, but languished on St. Helena in exile, reading and studying the Bible, contemplated Jesus:  "I know men, and I tell you Jesus was no mere man." When anyone considers the evidence the only credible hypothesis is that Jesus is the Son of God, but acknowledging this is not salvation, you must know Him, love Him, and follow Him as you trust in Him as Savior and submit to Him as Lord.

Other religious leaders are self-effacing, while Jesus was self-advancing or promoting and His teaching was self-centered.  You can take Buddha out of Buddhism and the faith remains intact, but Christ is what Christianity is all about; its essence is that Christ is God in the flesh!   Actually, the whole of Scripture is all about Jesus on every page and in every book.  It wasn't just Jesus who was His own witness: the Father and Holy Spirit gave approval of Him, and said, "This is My beloved Son...."

His miracles were really signs of His deity and were consistent, not helter-skelter, for prestige, personal gain, showy, fantastic, haphazard, capricious, without any reason, ostentatious, nor for personal gain or profit, but out of love as the motive to confirm faith.  He did everything that you would expect a God-man to do and was everything you'd expect Him to be.  I rest my case: there's no reason to doubt due to lack of evidence or irrationality.  If one is willing, God will authenticate the truth--He's no man's debtor--"seek and you will find" (cf. Matt. 7:7).

The conclusion of the matter is that anyone can make claims and do to be a somebody, and many have claimed to be Israel's Messiah, but their lives have to be consistent with their testimony and not belie it.  Jesus' life was of such caliber and moral uprightness that there is sufficient reason to believe he wasn't a deluded madman, lunatic, liar, or mistaken because he invariably practiced what He preached and preached what He practiced.  Usually, familiarity breeds contempt, but not in this case, the disciples recognized His holiness and no one could convict Him of sin or convince Him of it, they verified in their writings that He was without sin.  One disciple says to Christ:  "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man."

They willingly verified and proved the veracity of their witness to His resurrection by the sacrifice of their lives in martyrdom--people don't normally lie when threatened with death.  Just like Elvis impersonators are easy to spot, it is easy to realize that Jesus will never be surpassed or equaled (neither by predecessor nor by disciple nor by wannabe nor even rival).  You don't compare others with Him, but you contrast them with Christ.

Fanatics and religious extremists will die for what they believe is true, but they are not in a position to know the truth, as the disciples were, and they died to prove their veracity concerning their witness of the resurrection and the risen Jesus.   You don't normally believe someone was born of a virgin either (Buddha claimed his father was a white elephant and Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar claimed their fathers were serpents!), but if they lived like Jesus there would be ample reason to believe it. Soli Deo Gloria! 

He That Is Spiritual

Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder and first chancellor of Dallas Theological Seminary (the largest Protestant seminary on earth) wrote a book in 1918, He That Is Spiritual, to delineate the so-called carnal Christian as contrasted with the so-called spiritual ones.  An unbeliever was called the natural man.  This dichotomy of believers is unbiblical and misleading.  Any Christian can become carnal by sin, and all he needs to do is to confess it per 1 John 1:9--carnality is no perpetual or permanent state.  We all live in a state of perpetual and progressive confession and repentance--the unrepentant person is not saved. John says that a Christian doesn't continue in sin, and this means he makes it his way of life, though he may live a defeated life, there is some life to his faith or it is dead faith producing no works, which cannot save.

The whole purpose of faith is to produce the workmanship of God, foreordained by God, that we should walk in it (cf. Eph. 2:10).  Spiritual believers are not those who go overboard or are fanatical or so-called Jesus freaks, but those who walk with God in the Spirit.  They are realizing their potential of the fruit of the Spirit, and of knowing the Lord.  The Christian life that is spiritual is one that enjoys fellowship with God and other believers.  All believers are exhorted to read the Bible, witness, and pray; not just the clergy.

The spiritual man has relinquished ownership and throne of his life to Christ, he has surrendered to the Lordship of Christ, and he lives the substituted or exchanged life with Christ living through him.  "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.  The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (cf. Gal. 2:20).  This can only be accomplished by a believer in sync with God's will, and willing to follow Jesus wherever he may lead. The spiritual man has learned the secret of "inhabitation," as opposed to "imitation."

The obedient Christian does these things and the only test of faith is obedience. A. W. Tozer, in I Call it Heresy!, says:  "The Lord will not save those whom He cannot command.  He will not divide His offices.  You cannot believe in a half-Christ.  We take Him for what He is --the anointed Saviour and Lord...."   We see our faith in action by our good works according to James.  Paul would say we see our good works by our faith.  They go hand in hand. In other words:  As Lutheran martyr, preacher, and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Only he who believes is obedient, only he who is obedient believes."  (Note that it was by faith that Abraham obeyed, as written in Heb. 11:8.)   The ultimate result is the fruit of a changed life, not an ascetic or mystic one that parades or charades as spiritual.

The spiritual man is appraised of no one, because of the wisdom of God and, if we have the Spirit, we are spiritual.  The natural man cannot comprehend spiritual truth, for Satan has blinded his eyes.  We need the eyes of our hearts opened to see spiritual truths.  Some believers are more mature in the faith and know the Lord better, but all of them are spiritual.   There's no class system or caste system in Christianity, we are all brethren and one in Christ.   We should not idolize our fellow believers, even if they seem to be spiritual giants.  We should never try to give the impression we are more "spiritual" than other believers or have a holier-than-thou in attitude. By the same token, we shouldn't be intimidated by others and develop an inferiority complex.  Christ's church has no spiritual elite or privileged class, for God is no respecter of persons and shows no partiality (cf. Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11).

We all have different gifts and we don't have anything the Lord has not given us (cf. 1 Cor. 4:7).  It is the Spirit that matters, not the gift that makes us spiritual.  In exercising one's gift, what matters is the spirit that he uses it in. Believers have no excuse not to understand Scripture, pray, and witness and should enjoy the fruits of fellowship and worship in the body, because they have the illuminating ministry of the Spirit.

We are all works in progress and improving from faith to faith (cf. Rom. 1:17); no one can claim to have "arrived" or to have met the goal and won the prize (cf. Phil. 3:13-14).  We are in the process of maturing in Christ, but it is the direction we are going that counts and is the test, while perfection is the standard (cf. Matt. 5:48).  We must bear fruit as proof of our faith, or it is bogus--no fruit means no faith, and ergo no salvation.  (Jesus said we shall know them by their fruits in Matt. 7:16.)  We can only find meaning, purpose, and fulfillment ultimately in Christ:  "There is a God-shaped blank, and only God can fill it." (old axiom).   Soli Deo Gloria!  

Do You Have Enough Faith?

"The greatest question of our time is not communism versus individualism, not Europe versus America, not even the East versus the West--it is whether man can live without God."  (Will Durant, humanist historian) "God is dead."  (Nietzsche); "Nietzsche is dead."  (God)  [Graffiti in NYC subway]
"Men have forgotten God." (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)  "A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts."  (Historian Paul Johnson)
"With the exception of certain mathematicians and physicists, all authors of the Great Books are represented in the chapter on God."  (Mortimer Adler, The Great Ideas Syntopicon)
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God..." (2 Cor. 10:5, ESV).
"Where is the philosopher?  Where is the scholar?  Where is the debater of the age?  Hasn't God made the world's wisdom foolish?"  (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:20).

It isn't how much faith you have, but the object of the faith that matters: faith doesn't save, Christ does, though!   Jesus mentioned faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains.  It is better and more advantageous to have faith in the right direction, no matter how small it is ("O ye of little faith"), than to have misdirected, but strong faith in the wrong object--God desires sincere, unfeigned faith, not perfect faith (cf. 1 Tim. 1:5).  This can be illustrated by having a lot of faith in the Pope or the church, but none in Christ alone.  Your faith, no matter how much, must be solely in Christ (the Reformers' formula:  Faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone, brings salvation, by the authority of the Scripture alone [not the authority of the church or Pope!]).  You are adding to the grace of God by trusting in your merits or adding to your faith by adding a little trust in your church.  Don't add to the gospel's simplicity!

The spiritual man is no less a person of reasoning power than the natural, secular man. The dispute is not faith versus reason, but faith versus faith!  Faith is not to blame, but blind, misinformed faith.  It is not a conflict between faith and reason, but which set of presuppositions or assumptions you willing, knowingly accept.  Christians start with the faith that God has supernaturally revealed the truth or special revelation, while the secularist denies the supernatural as his assumption!  It is prima facie everyone has faith in something, even themselves: but faith is necessary for knowledge of any kind (Augustine).  The key to knowledge is the fear of the Lord, not evolution (cf. Prov. 1:7).

To today's Secularists, science has become a sort of religion (with the answers!) but faith in science is still faith!  Science has become a universal language! They believe all man's problems can be solved by science, but you cannot prove this presupposition by the scientific method! This is not science, but harnessing science unscientifically for unscientific purposes and is "scientism!" (An example of this: Carl Sagan said, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.")  "Scientism" espouses the tenet that the only reliable source of truth is science.  Science cannot make philosophical or religious pronouncements, period.   Without God, you cannot have a metaphysical answer to a physical world since only matter exists (materialism) and everything can be explained by natural causes (naturalism).

Science has been wrong--scientists make mistakes, period; there's no such thing as perfect objectivity and flawless induction. And Science cannot make value judgments: it can tell us the "know-how", but not the "know-why" or meaning of reality (metaphysics)--this knowledge is not in the realm or domain of science. (That is, some things cannot be defined by, or confined to, laboratory conditions, and cannot be measured, repeated, or observed!)

However, everyone starts with some presupposition they cannot prove logically or empirically (by reason or experience--a priori, a posteriori). All-knowing, then, necessitates faith, which precedes knowledge! Though faith precedes knowledge, knowledge must be intelligible or understood by the reasoning power.  N.B. that the presuppositions one brings to the data determines one's deductions or conclusions. We commence with a presupposition no one can prove.  Christian faith steps beyond the reason and isn't contrary to it.  But faith in God is a reasonable proposition--we don't kiss our brains goodbye--"'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD" (cf. Isaiah 1:18).  (I refer to A Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig.)  N.B. that there is no fundamental strife between true science and the Bible--Francis A. Schaeffer wrote No Final Conflict to prove this.

Theology is the "queen of sciences" (according to Thomas Aquinas) and Christianity is the "mother of science" (it couldn't have evolved under any other worldview)--Sir Francis Bacon invented the scientific method and is the father of modern science, and all the first scientists were Christians, who believed a divine Lawgiver would create a predictable law-abiding universe worthy of study: Sir Francis Newton was a Bible scholar, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei jump-started scientific endeavor and discovery.  In contrast, Secularists deny the supernatural as their presupposition and rule God out of the equation even before beginning it--they are blinded by Satan (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4) and don't see the big picture of God at work.

Be ready for the skeptic's challenge!  When they say, "Where is God?"  Answer:  "Where isn't He?"  I would like to see the skeptic go to somewhere on earth untouched by the gospel and declare himself an atheist!   If someone says you cannot prove God, you must counter:  "You cannot disprove Him either, for logic says you can never prove a universal negative unless you are omniscient and omnipresent."  If someone says, "I don't believe in God," ask them if they think their belief makes any difference to God:  "God doesn't believe in atheists!"  You should always turn their objections or smokescreens back on them as a weapon they cannot fight.  Ask them for the evidence!  They will realize, then, that they cannot defend their position and it's pure, blind faith. They don't believe the Bible not even fathoming its main message!   Do you see the evil and say, "Why," or the good and say, "Why not?" Note that the Bible says that a fool has said in his heart [not mind--his heart's in the wrong place!] that there is no God (cf. Psalm 14:1).  "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them"  (Rom. 1:19, ESV).

There's no hard, definitive evidence that God exists or doesn't exist, but if you want to believe, and are an honest seeker, not a trifler, then God will find a way to authenticate Himself to you personally.  God wants to be found by faith because only faith pleases Him (cf. Heb. 11:6).  There is enough evidence in nature (His fingerprints and imprint) and in Scripture (His revealed will and testimony), that anyone with an open mind, willing spirit, and needy heart will believe.  If they tell you to prove the Bible is the Word of God, tell them to prove it themselves by exposing their soul to it by a sincere perusal.

Scholar Norman Geisler wrote a book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and he is implying that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer; there's simply more evidence in God's favor and He answers more questions while having more unanswered questions for the atheist.  It's simply easier to believe that be a skeptic--go with the preponderance of the evidence! Descartes said, "Cogito, ergo sum" or," I think, therefore I am!"   He went on to conclude that God was, by the same logic--thinking requires a thinker, who, by definition, exists, and God is defined as the ultimate, final, higher thinker--the Higher Mind or Supreme Mind or Being.  Sir Francis Bacon, the so-called father of the scientific method, said, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." Amen to Goethe, who said, "Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own."

Note that the vast majority of philosophers (including the Greek triumvirate of antiquity: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the philosopher) have expressed belief in God. Since ideas have a special impact and natural consequences, whether right or wrong, here are some men and one woman who changed history through atheism.  As you read this carefully, notice that Pandora's box of horrors was opened with the denial of God's reality, just like it says in Romans that God gave them up.  Give a passing thought or cursory reading to the manifold can of worms that has been opened! Note the havoc that atheists have wreaked on the social and moral order:  "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?  (Psalm 11:3, ESV).   A few famous, notable, great minds have been influential, or should I say militant atheists either in fact or in effect, though throughout history (no specific order):

Epicurus and his Epicurean philosophy ("eat, drink, and be merry"); reformer of Hinduism Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha--the Enlightened One), said if there was a God He can't help you find enlightenment--you must attain that on your own; philosopher Confucius; Greek philosophers, skeptic Democritus and existentialist Heraclitus; Roman Lucretius; skeptic David Hume, known for saying that miracles are a violation of natural law, but science cannot forbid miracles--their truth depends upon the veracity of the witness and credibility and dependability of the historical records; John Stuart Mill, along with David Hume and Bertrand Russell, he tried to disprove and discredit Christianity, and was the so-called most intelligent man who ever lived; Frederick Engels, philosopher, and coauthor of Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx; Ethan Allen, American patriot, said only science gives reliable ethics; Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, philosopher of "dialectic [historical] idealism" or materialism, the basis and foundation of communism and Utopian theory, who said, "Everything is in the process of historical change," and who said that everything moves in stages to increased complexity, even societies and ideas [a state of flux];  Karl Marx, utopian with PhD in philosophy and author of Das Kapital, because he believed evolution gave the scientific basis for communism and wanted Darwin to write the intro, who said "Morality is only the expression of self-interest," and "Religion is the opiate of the people," and who became midwife to Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong;Charles Dawin, credited with being the promoter of evolution and naturalist-biologist with an interest in uniformitarian geology influenced by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, which he took along- and turned philosopher--whose grandfather Erasmus Darwin originated evolutionary thought in Zoonomia, known for The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 (hailed as "one of the most important books ever written" because it attacked the most important book ever written, the Bible, because it gave atheists a way to explain the universe without God in the equation, or to have academic and intellectual freedom), Darwin set sail on board The Beagle in 1831 to do empirical research and who thought that evolution, not God, was the ultimate truth or reality; Darwin's Bulldog Thomas Huxley; humanist Aldous Huxley, who said that atheism allowed for "sexual liberation," and the author of the "philosophy of meaninglessness"; social Darwinist Herbert Spencer, and a popularizer/promoter of agnosticism;  the famed Great Agnostic Robert Ingersoll, who was known for his anti-Christian oratory; existentialist Martin Heidegger; journalist at the Scopes trial, also known as the Monkey trial H. L. Mencken; the redoubtable Madalhyn Murray O'Hair, famed and infamous activist, who said ironically that nothing good ever became of Christianity and then succeeded in getting prayer banned from public schools in 1963, and was murdered by a former employee; Lord Bertrand Russell, philosopher-mathematician, who wrote iconic Why I Am Not a Christian, who ironically said that "what the world needs is more Christian love," while trying to disprove God's very existence and said there needs to be more evidence; philosopher Francois Marie Voltaire, who, on his death bed, died in despair and bemoaned the fact that he had to die without Jesus and enter hell forsaken, also said that "man created God in his image"--he was a Deist and mason, but a practical atheist and enemy of Christ; Jeremy Bentham who believed in the "greatest good for the greatest number" as the state's ethic (utitilitarianism);  William James, who said there's no universal truth, but you can only determine an idea's usefulness; Jean-Paul Sartre, French popular litterateur and teacher; Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher who deemed himself the Antichrist, was a homosexual, wimp, and anti-Semite, was also author of  Ubermensch" or superman, Hitler's model for Aryan supremacy and a master-race,  and philosopher of evolution and professor of philology; Ivan Pavlov, Russian behaviorist and psychologist, known for experiments with dogs' saliva; Sigmund Freud, psychiatrist and psychologist-neurosurgeon-anthropologist (who made Vienna the center of psychoanalysis) and was the father of psychoanalysis, who said religion and belief in God was a neurosis or even a psychosis and God was a throwback to our need of a father-figure--he came into vogue and was the most influential psychiatrist of the twentieth century; famed author Ernest Hemingway, who committed suicide; Richard Wagner, composer of Hitler's favorite, Thus Spake Zaruthurstra; humanist historians, H. G. Wells and Will Durant; John Dewey, psychologist and educator, revolutionizing American public schools, and along with Charles Pierce and William James architect of pragmatism, whose ideas led the way to relativism, and who wrote the manifesto A Common Faith and contributed to the first Humanist Manifesto, to delineate humanism as religion without God, and was the champion of pragmatism:  "The test of an idea is not whether it's true, but whether it works"; John Kenneth Galbraith, former Humanist of the Year and socialist; French cynic Albert Camus, who said  that "the only philosophical question worth considering is suicide;" Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that he didn't attribute to man any more significance than a baboon" and that "Law is the majority vote that can lick all others"; psychologist B. F. Skinner, pioneer of  Behaviorism, and who wrote Beyond Freedom and Dignity implying we don't have responsibility, dignity, nor freedom (that "freedom is a illusion and dignity a lost cause"); humanist, and socialist John Kenneth Galbraith; humanist psychologist Erich Fromm, who wrote You Shall Be As Gods, saying belief in sin is our downfall, and we can become gods; philosopher-author Julian Huxley, who rendered evolution unequivocally as fact and that history is in a process of evolution, and who wrote Religion Without Revelation postulating that we don't need God for ethics; humanist psychologist Carl Rogers, known for popularizing the "self" or the "soul" and who denied that man was inherently evil; scientist and humanist Isaac Asimov; Carl Sagan, astronomer, author of Cosmos, and humanist-of-the-year, promoter of "scientism ("The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be:)"; entrepreneur Ted Turner, who said Christianity is for losers and that the Ten Commandments are obsolete and proposed the Ten Voluntary Initiatives, such as treating the earth with respect; author Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, saying believers catch belief like a fever and "Religion is a mental virus"; and finally, Stephen Hawking, brilliant scientist-professor-author, who wrote A Brief History of Time, and is an avowed enemy of God.


However, these examples only prove there is always the exception which proves the rule and these men's lives demonstrate their lack of faith in God and the fruit speaks for itself. "... [There] is none that doeth good" (cf. Psalm 14:1, 53:1, KJV).  Just like it says:   "Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (cf. Rom. 1:28); "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie"  (cf. Rom. 1:25).  If you study the above list, you will see what evil has been perpetrated by introducing atheism and setting it loose on mankind.  "[If] the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3, ESV).   Why such animus aimed and directed toward God?  God is good and His fruits are good (cf Psalm 34:8:  "Taste and see that the LORD is good,...").  What evil has Christianity done, that they hate it?

There is always room for honest doubt but not a spirit of skepticism (cf. "I believe, help thou mine unbelief,"  Mark 9:24), but God still welcomes the skeptic, because there are answers to any honest scrutiny, which will be contravened by the Truth, which is absolute and timeless.   Christians have naught to fear from honest inquiry or scrutiny!  The Greeks invented skepticism, and dogma was their enemy--they didn't want to know anything for certain!  This is where Postmodernism puts us:  "You can know nothing for certain."  This truth claim has no truth value since it is a self-contradiction of truth relativism! Actually, the only truths they hold relative are the Christian ones!   How can they know that statement for sure anyway?  Atheism is a bankrupt, irrational, and invalid philosophy that cannot be defended, and the only motives for espousing it are moral rebellion and intellectual arrogance.

The problem is that the conclusions these men drew were prejudiced by their subjective presupposition that there is no God.  They ruled out His very existence before they even made any investigations because God is not palatable to their way of living; it wasn't suitable to their mores and didn't fit their lifestyle.  In other words, they didn't want to believe, not they couldn't believe--for this is man's problem (his intellectual arrogance, not his intellectual integrity).  You don't have to commit intellectual suicide to become a believer, for there is enough evidence for anyone willing to believe (If you are willing, you will know for sure, according to Jesus in John  7:17).  The Jews had this problem, for they had seen many signs and miracles, and still would not believe, not could not (cf. John 12:37, NIV; Psalm 78:32, NIV).

No one can be argued into the kingdom--you cannot rationalize God, through His presence is seen everywhere--His imprint from atoms to the galaxies shows His laws and nature at work!  Infidels are seldom convinced by argument--they just want to play mind games or power trips, to stump the Christians with unanswerable queries.   It is the skeptic that has the facts to fear, though!  Because Jesus is the personification of Truth (cf. John 14:6:  "I am the Truth...")!

We should note that in antiquity there was no sharp distinction between science and philosophy--they saw no contradiction, and indeed there is "no final conflict" (according to Francis Schaeffer), as the Bible has no scientific absurdities, has proved over and over again to be ahead of scientific discovery, and wherever it makes a scientific statement it is accurate--you don't have to be an atheist to be a good scientist, contrary to modern thought science has not disproved the Bible or God. In the final analysis, the only truth that counts is that which is according to reality--as Locke puts it:  that which corresponds to reality.  This is called the "correspondence theory of truth" or "true truth" as Francis Schaeffer terms it).   In summation, don't put your faith in the moving train of science, but in the eternal, immutable, infallible, inerrant Word of God as the definitive, final arbiter of truth!

But just notice how atheism is the ultimate irony:  order minus an "Orderer"; design minus the Designer; purpose minus any "Purposer"; justice minus a Judge; art minus an Artist; laws minus the Supreme Lawgiver; matter without a Creator (they don't refer to creation--this is like a building without a builder!); thought without a Supreme or Ultimate Thinker or Superior Mind;  can there be good without the Ultimate Good or standard of goodness?  Time without any beginning and no  Beginner; no Big Bang because that implies and necessitate a Beginner, too,  and a beginning of time!  They believe in the laws of nature, but not in nature's God or a Lawgiver!  They believe in naturalism, or that there are a natural reason and explanation for anything, and anything can be explained away in terms of the natural, not the supernatural. They believe in matter and materialism (or that only matter exists), but see no meaning behind it; they say we've come from nothing, have no meaning, and are headed nowhere! They deny a beginning and an ending of history--matter is eternal and "uncreated"!   If you saw beauty what good is it without someone to appreciate it and to be designed for someone to be enjoyed?  How can you believe in thought if you believe everything is material/energy/quanta and there is no supernatural or immaterial?   You cannot believe in rationalism without a rationale behind the cosmos!

Atheists take a leap of faith based on sentiment, not reason ("The fool has said in his heart that there is no God").  Atheists are the ones with great faith and out on a limb, with no defenses!  Most atheists just feel like atheists and haven't thought it out--they are atheists by consequence not a conviction and they don't want to believe the inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unpalatable.  Most atheists cannot defend their faith and thus have blind faith by definition, not knowing why they don't believe.  Atheism is a bankrupt philosophy that cannot answer the basic questions of life and gives nothing but a bleak outlook on our purpose and meaning, to the point of despair.  It raises many more questions than it asks and can challenge people of faith that should be able to answer them (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15).    Soli Deo Gloria!

Headsup On Knowing Our God

"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess. 1:8

There is a world of difference 'twixt knowing about God and knowing God first-hand or having knowledge about God and of God.  We must turn our knowledge about God into the knowledge of God, though knowing about Him is a prerequisite to knowing Him.  Believing He exists or knowledge about Him doesn't satisfy--we yearn to have a relationship with Him and to know Him.  Why?  To know Him is to love Him and our mission is to know Him and make Him known!  Richard of Chichester said that he wanted to "know Him more clearly, follow Him more nearly, and love Him more dearly!"  What a challenge!  In knowing God we cannot define Him, put Him in a box, or limit Him in any way--He is infinite and we at finite and cannot grasp Him ("Canst thou by searching find out God?"--Job 11:7).  The only way to know God is not second-hand knowledge, but by a personal, divine encounter via an exercise of faith in the risen Christ.

God's pet peeve is that man doesn't know Him and those who don't know Him are condemned.  "Three is no faithfulness, no love, no knowledge of God in the land." (cf. Hosea 4:6).  The problem with man is that he rejects what he does know and isn't grateful, but worships the creation, not the creator! The benefits, not the Benefactor!   Knowing God is eternal life and it is imperative that God knows us or we will be condemned:  "I never knew you...."  Knowing God boggles the mind, enlarges the intellect, expands our thinking, and blows us away.  Daniel says that "those who know their God shall be strong and do exploits"  (cf. Dan. 11:32).  It is possible to have an intimate acquaintance with the Almighty through daily devotion to prayer and Bible reading.

It isn't how big your faith is, but how big your God is!  Some have a God who is too human, and their God is thus too small--an inadequate vision or view of God is idolatry.   Don't underestimate the Almighty or put Him in a box to fit your dimensions or definitions like thinking of Him as the Great Mathematician, Mean Judge, Man Upstairs, Father Time, or Great Artist, or even God is like you! "With whom then will you compare God? To what image will you liken Him?" Isaiah 40:18

No one is like God and we cannot compare Him to anyone--we don't talk in comparatives or superlatives, but contrast Him.  The good thing is that we are in His image (the imago Dei) and because we are persons with a personality just like God has and we can relate to Him and form friendships and relationships.  But take it all by faith--you'll never figure God out because you're finite and He's infinite (the finite cannot grasp, the infinite goes the maxim).

God's fingerprints or imprints are everywhere and He is always with us.  Christianity is about the God who is there and He is not silent but invites us to know Him personally.  All that we need to know of God's nature and personality is given us in the person of Christ--God with skin on!  Though we are inadequate in describing Him, we are commanded to make Him known! The Bible never proves God but assumes Him and makes Him known!  We cannot know God exhaustively, but truly, for eternal life is to know God (cf. John 17:3).     Soli Deo Gloria!

Queen Of Sciences

Theology is the "queen of sciences" and probably the first science since it formulated the basics of all we still know of God.  It is based on Scripture, the immediate revelation of God, and cannot be disputed by man's conjecture or speculation.  We are all theologians in a sense because we all have private ideas concerning God and interpret the Bible accordingly.  It's not that some people are just good at theology and are therefore theologians, but some people just take a liking to this avenue of knowledge--direct from God.

Someday even science will have to admit that the theologians were right and they will meet together where theologians have stood for centuries, contemplating the origin of the universe, of evil, of man, et al.  Theology is not an abstract science that is a fool's errand of speculation, rather it's an exact science based on the faith that God has revealed to us what we need to know.  It's not a matter of faith versus reason, but of faith in God versus faith in science, or which set of presuppositions you decide to accept as your starting point.  In other words, everyone has faith!

You can know all there is to know of theology and miss the boat spiritually, yet theology is necessary, though it's not sufficient.  You must have your heart in the right place and have faith in God, not just head knowledge or consent to a dogma.  We all need a sound theology to mature in Christ, and that is why theologians are necessary--those that devote themselves to this endeavor.  The reason is that you cannot avoid theology--we're all theologians (those who study the nature of God)!   However, you can get A's in theology class and hardly know the Lord, because it's just head knowledge--it must go down 18 inches to the heart.

Many people distrust theologians because they seem to be intellectuals with their heads in the clouds or on abstract ideas, but this is unwarranted because there are theologians who know the Lord and know how to apply theology to the Christian experience.  It's the immature believer who balks at learning the teachings of God in-depth and doesn't go on to know the Lord.  We must get an intellectual grasp on the concepts found in theology because something cannot be in your heart that's not first in your head!   That's why it's vitally important that our heart is in the right place, even before we get our thinking straightened out--which is commanded in 2 Cor. 10:5, ESV, to "take every thought captive to obey Christ."  Otherwise, we will be "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14, ESV).   When we are ignorant of basic doctrine we are vulnerable to the assaults of Satan and are led astray by false doctrine and even doctrines of demons.

The mistake is to be overly convinced that the primary goal is to be right in everything; however, it's imperative that our hearts be in the right place more so than our doctrine be "impeccably correct." There are some controversies worth the fight to see what the truth is; godless ones are not.  Sound doctrine must be ascertained and heresy denounced--this is the calling of polemics or of defending the faith.   Soli Deo Gloria!

A Dangerous Knowledge

We all need to know the scoop, the lowdown, or the skinny in the world of theology to navigate faithfully through the Word, i.e., to know our way around the block in the Word with correct interpretation and application.  In the last days, according to 2 Tim. 4:3, many will bail out theologically and in 1 Tim. 4:1 it says even believers will give heed to seducing spirits, or doctrines of demons.

Today's Eastern philosophy predominates with New Age (the Age of Aquarius) and it's many Buddhist and Hindu applications are stealing people away from the truth of Scripture by an experience with the occult or Eastern religion.  We need to be informed of a balance of doctrine, and know what we believe (the problem with today's youth is that they largely don't know what or why they believe).  A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and when we think we've cornered the market or have an exclusive mindset (no one has a monopoly or has all the truth!) or if we seek knowledge for its own sake, we've misused it. Knowledge must not remain theoretical but must have an application and become real to the person's experience.

Not many are mighty in the Scriptures, but we all need to train to show ourselves approved unto God (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15).   The Bible warns that "knowledge puffs up!"  (Cf. 1 Cor. 8:1).   One of God's peeves is that man perishes through lack of knowledge or ignorance (cf. Hos. 4:6). Ignorance is not bliss, but it binds you and opens you up to being led astray.  Don't you sometimes just thirst for the unadulterated truth of God: sometimes there's no knowledge of God in the land as Hos 4:1 says.

The biggest error Christians have in acquiring knowledge is to be over-influenced by one teacher and drink of only one fountain, as it were--this is a good way to lose perspective and to be led into error.   Indeed, there are Christians who are like bulls in china shops, or more accurately, like Dennis the Menace!  Their middle name is trouble and their head knowledge is way above their application of it.
Soli Deo Gloria!  

Having A Foundation

Some misled believers sincerely believe it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. This is fallacious and what you believe is the most important thing about you.  Ideas have consequences and you cannot engage in heresy without it having the side effect of wrong behavior or mislead and misguided action.  Doctrine is not simply your philosophy but means "teaching" in plain English.  "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

We think in terms of vocabulary and the bigger our vocabulary, the more profound or engaged our thinking can attain to. Doctrine is akin to the vocabulary of the Bible and one must master the basics of the milk of the Word to move on to the meat or solid food of the Bible.  You are unskilled in the Word of Righteousness if you don't know the ABCs of doctrine.  We think in terms of doctrine and applied doctrine as our vocabulary and shouldn't base our learning upon experience, such as mystics do. Doctrine is rudimentary and we cannot avoid or escape it without committing spiritual suicide.

Teachers are to "teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine" (cf. Titus 2:1) and to pay attention to their doctrine, and "rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith." (cf. Titus 2:13).   Learning doctrine requires a disciplined mind, but when you enroll in the school of Christ it comes with the territory. Now it is important to have the right doctrine or orthodoxy, but orthopraxy (right ethics) is also vital. Just because our doctrine is impeccably correct doesn't mean everything is copacetic.  It is more paramount that our hearts be right with the Lord than our minds fixated on the right beliefs.  But both are important to a healthy Christian walk.  R. C. Sproul says:  "You can have sound doctrine without a sound life, but no sound life without sound doctrine."

No matter how much faith we have and no matter how sincere we are, if our doctrine is heretical we are not saved.  Sincerity is important but it is not everything--you can be sincerely wrong and lost.  Mature believers are defined in Ephesians 4:14 as those who are not "tossed about by every wind of doctrine."  This stability only comes with a basic foundation that cannot be shaken and getting a frame of reference so that the believer knows what he believes and even what beliefs are negotiable, and which ones are not. (Augustine's dictum says, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.")   We must know when it is appropriate to be dogmatic and stand up for the faith, contend, and when to cut some slack! "For the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine." (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). 

Yes, there is false doctrine in the church; however, we are to be ever vigilant and to answer it with sound doctrine, not avoid it entirely.  To avoid doctrine because of false doctrine is only spiritual suicide and abandoning the search for the truth, whereas godliness is through the Word of Truth and we feed on doctrine resident in the soul.  In the final analysis, you are rewarded according to your good deeds, but you are saved according to what your beliefs--these two are correlated, and can be distinguished, but not separated or divorced.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Committing Spiritual Suicide

Doctrinal accuracy is not an option in the church, but a mandate, as teachers are to teach sound doctrine and pay attention to what accords with sound doctrine (cf. Titus 2:1).  There is nothing wrong with the quest to be right, contrary to the teachings of the so-called "emerging church," which has the postmodern philosophy that we haven't nailed down biblical orthodoxy yet, making it "shrink-wrapped" or "freeze-dried."  It is dangerous to react to dogma by not believing in dogma or to be anti-dogma.  It is true, however, that one can be correct in his doctrine and have no spiritual life; we don't want to content ourselves on just being right theologically, with no inner reality.  Faith is more than acquiescence or consent to the church's dogma.

We cannot think that we are a cut above others or that less informed brethren are poor specimens of the faith.  It is vitally more important to be right in our hearts than in our minds--but both are necessary for a living faith.  "You cannot have a sound life without a sound doctrine, but you can have a sound doctrine without a sound life" according to R. C. Sproul.  You could say that one could get A's in theology class and hardly know the Lord at all, but if one does know the Lord, he will not ignore theology; however, it cannot just be in his head

We don't kiss our brains goodbye when converting but begin our search for the truth.  The sign of a believer is that he loves the truth and the sign of the unbeliever is that he rejects the truth (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10)  The unbeliever does not "obey the truth" and will "reject the truth" (cf. Rom. 2:8).  It is not an option to dismiss doctrine as unimportant, an aside, or only a side-issue; one cannot ignore doctrine--it's just what doctrines will be adhered to.  If we dismiss doctrine, we are committing spiritual suicide because we cannot avoid it doctrine. You could say that it is necessary, but not sufficient for a healthy relationship with God.  You can have no normal relationship with God without it, but you can also have no normal relationship with it, too. We cannot dismiss doctrine as irrelevant, because of only childish faith balks at learning the things of God in depth.  (Cf. 1 Tim. 3:9:  "They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.")

We are to contend (per Jude v. 3) for the faith (the common body of knowledge we adhere to).  We must not remain an infant in the faith, unable to comprehend the meat of the Word. What some believers do is to reject all theology or doctrine because they have experienced bad theology or bad theologians and reject theology per se because of it.  This is not an option for the true student of the Word (cf. John 8:31).  As we use our mind to God's glory, we are to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you..." (1 Peter 3:15, NKJV).

To despise theology is to despise the very Word of God.--not an option (can't avoid it!).   How can you be right in your heart, if you are not right in your mind first?  Our hearts reflect what we think:  "Keep [guard] thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23, KJV).  Proverbs says, (23:7, NKJV):  "As he thinks in his heart, so is he...."  We are what we think about and our heart is only a reflection of our thoughts.  To be sure, there can be no spiritual health with correct theology, and there can be none without it either. One should not content himself just to be doctrinally orthodox either.  This is what the situation with the Ephesian church was:  They were theologically sound, but had left their first love--this is dead orthodoxy!

We must apply what we know and make it our experience, not just pride.  According to 1 Timothy 4:1, one of the signs of the last days will be that churches will bail out theologically--they will not heed sound doctrine and "depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons." When you ignore sound doctrine, it only opens the door to false doctrine.  We don't just ignore good doctrine because we've had a bad experience with bad doctrine.  Simply because we hate being wrong, we must not avoid theology altogether. God places a premium on the mind and deplores ignorance--ignorance is no excuse and is not bliss either!  We may be against intellectualism, but not against the mind per se and using it to God's glory, as we love God with all our minds.

God's will is to dispel our ignorance and it is the domain of the Holy Spirit to enlighten us, as we "shall know the truth and the truth shall set [us] free" according to John 8:32.  "Canst thou by searching find out [fathom] the deep things of God?"  (Job 11:7, KJV).   The answer is "NO!."   Our religion is a religion of revelation and not of human origin:  "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes."

One modern phenomenon is that we are increasing in knowledge, but remaining unchanged in our natures.  There is a vacuum in everyone that only God can fill, according to Blaise Pascal.  Carl Jung said the "central neurosis of our time is emptiness."  Billy Graham says we are all on a great "Quest" to find meaning and purpose in life and live in a vacuum that is boring (only man is truly capable of being bored despite his environment and circumstances) and "nature abhors a vacuum."  Man not only needs knowledge, but he needs a relationship with God and the wisdom to use it.

It is actually pride that closes the door to learning:  To commence learning we must admit our ignorance!  "I believe in order to understand," said Augustine.  In other words, "all knowledge begins in faith." We must remain vigilant, humble, teachable, open-minded, receptive, needy, and willing to do as God reveals to us to be in the right frame of mind to mature.  When we learn the truth we must not merely say,  "How interesting!" It is meant to upset and challenge us and our lifestyle--God's Word is meant to shock us out of our comfort zones!

You must open yourself up to the possibility that you may be wrong and let God's Word do its thing and have its total impact!  If you've never made a mistake, they say, you've never made anything!   Finally, never get caught in the trap that you've arrived--that you do not have any more need to learn anymore, having the attitude of a "know-it-all."  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Place Of Sound Doctrine...

To theologians:  Don't be content or satisfied just to be right in your doctrine, because there is more to the Christian abundant life than knowing all the answers, in being right all the time, or your "philosophy," because love is what makes us distinct--not orthodoxy, which can be a sham or pretense.  You can have all your theology correct and be hollow and shallow inside amounting to nothing spiritually, and then again you can know very little about doctrine (I assume you know the basics of a standard credo) and have a very strong faith.  However, if the doctrine you do believe in is not sound, your walk will not be either:  You can have a sound doctrine without a sound life, but not a sound life without sound doctrine--you cannot be a heretic, or out on a limb.

r

To be a theologian is not a spiritual gift and we are all theologians; some are just better at it than others or are more serious about it.  It is not whether or not you are a theologian, but what kind of theologian you are--your doctrinal viewpoint reflects your theological school of thought and you see in this light in a sort seeing the big picture through a lens.  Without doctrine, you get tunnel vision and don't have any perspective.  A lot of theological skill is just plain academic skill and that is why all the great theologians have been men of great learning and expertise. A word of wisdom:  We are not rewarded according to how much we know, but how much we sow.

Doctrine is not everything, but it is still necessary, and if you realize that it means "teaching" you will not object to the nomenclature.  The early disciples were devoted to the "apostles' doctrine" according to Acts 2:42.  Paul urges Timothy to "watch your doctrine closely...."  There will come a time according to 2 Timothy 3 that men will not endure sound doctrine, but will "bail out theologically" to use Chuck Swindoll's wording.  No matter what, you cannot avoid facing up to theology or you commit spiritual suicide--this is not an option for the believer, according to R. C. Sproul, renowned theologian.

We are not all professional theologians and the reason they get such a bad rap is basically the distrust of theologians, and their reputation as being eggheads, intellectuals, and scholarly, and not realistic or applicable. To cite three well-known examples:  Where would we be without St. Augustine of Hippo, the greatest theologian of the first 400 years, of the church after the closing of the canon? It was Tertullian who first termed and taught clearly the doctrine of the Trinity.  "All Scripture is profitable for [what?] doctrine..." (2 Tim. 3:16); Athanasius was called the Father of Orthodoxy because of his diatribe with the Aryan heretics and defense of the triune Godhead.  

That is a loaded question since most people have a preconceived idea of what doctrine is. Doctrine is important; don't bail out theologically (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). We all have a credo; we all have doctrines; some of us just don't have sound doctrine. Usually, they think of something dogmatic or doctrinaire or narrow-minded. They want to avoid doctrine. Actually, if we realize that all doctrine means is "teaching" then half the problem is solved. Who's against teaching?

Doctrine isn't just for intellectuals. You don't commit spiritual or intellectual suicide when you join a ministry or church. You are committing spiritual suicide if you ignore doctrine: It is a given and we are all theologians in a sense. We cannot avoid doctrine: "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). "Those who are wayward in spirit shall gain understanding; those who complain will accept instruction [doctrine, as it were]" (cf. Isa. 29:14).

There is value in knowing the scoop, as it were, or being "clued in," because this gives us confidence and these two, according to Charles Swindoll, are like Siamese twins. Doctrine feeds the soul and is the spiritual bread that Christ referred to when He said, "You shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (cf. Matt. 4:4). Just because we are privy to some doctrine doesn't make us a cut above other Christians. " The mere presence of doctrine can leave us cold, even if it is sound doctrine." It is necessary for spiritual wellness but not sufficient.

We don't have the right to believe what we feel is right but must obey rules of hermeneutics and logic that apply to any other book as well. Avoiding controversy is un-Christlike because Christ didn't shy from controversy: "To avoid controversy is to avoid Christ" (see John Stott's book Christ the Controversialist) The early disciples were devoted to the apostles' doctrine or teaching. Remember, God wants us to be "mature in our understanding." Ignorance is not bliss! It is a childish faith that balks at learning Scripture in depth. The meat of the Word is for those who "have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (cf. Heb. 5:14). I rest my case!    Soli Deo Gloria!

The Pursuit Of God

"If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them"  (John 13:17).
"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain..." (John 15:16). "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing"  (John 15:5).

Of course, I realize that my title was also the title of a famous book by A. W. Tozer, but I must borrow it to make my point right off the bat.  Is knowledge about God a requisite for knowing Him? Can we afford to be ignorant but good people?  What good does it do to know a lot "about God?" You must turn this knowledge about God into a personal knowledge of God.  Because to know Him is to love Him!  If you really study Psalm 119 (probably written by the Bible scholar Ezra), you will come to the realization that the psalmist loved the Scriptures and they were his meditation all the day long.  But loving the Bible does no good if we are not applying our knowledge. When God opens our eyes and enlightens us we are responsible to share our insights or pass them on if we want more, and thus be good stewards and faithful witnesses to His light.

This is not an attack on learning or the thirst for knowledge per se, which has its own reward and we should thank God for our enjoyment of it.  If one studies law, he should pray God turns it into His glory in some ministry so that all that study is not wasted.  The pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of God are two separate goals unless the knowledge is to the glory of God. We are not just to be philosophers or lovers of knowledge, but lovers of God.  "Whether you eat or whether you drink, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).  This is being purpose-oriented.   We may enjoy history, for example, but unless it is to the glory of God and put into practice it is bunk as far as the kingdom of God is concerned.

The reward of knowledge is in the putting it into practice ("...knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" and "to whom much is given, much is required"), like the ultimate reward of studying medicine is in the healing of people not getting educated.  We enjoy a lot of things in life, and we should thank God for them, but we are not rewarded just because we enjoy them (e.g., eating, drinking, reading, sports, politics, and even sex). God blesses us all with common grace to enjoy and have a capacity for life--"...who gives us richly all things to enjoy"  (1 Tim. 6:17). The subject of this post is the pursuit of God and being rewarded at the Bema by Christ, not how much we enjoy the blessings of life.

To delineate the problem with many believers, what they are guilty of is balking at the deeper things of God while leaving the so-called doctrine or dogma to the theologians or clergy. Erasmus said that doctrine is the bugbear of the Church and many believers today have followed suit--thinking it is just philosophy.  Actually, theology is the Queen of the Sciences!  They have come full circle from the Reformation, in that they blindly follow the clerics and don't become like Bereans, who search out matters for themselves and study their Bibles.  An understanding of sound doctrine is necessary for a sound life; one cannot live a sound life apart from sound doctrine.  On the other hand, you can know all the doctrine and get a degree in it, or great kudos, and not have a sound life to be practicing what you preach or know.  You could say that doctrine is necessary, but not sufficient (you have to use it as a means to an end, not as an end per se) because there is more than just knowing or being familiar with doctrine.

We are all theologians in that we come to our own basic understanding, interpretation, or viewpoint of Scripture.  The question is, is how good of a theologian are we and do we subscribe to false doctrine.  What we believe has a definite impact on our behavior (orthodoxy or right doctrine influences orthopraxy or right ethics).  We cannot ignore basic and sound doctrine because that is not an option for the believer who wants to walk close to Christ.  We make so many mistakes simply because of our ignorance and Paul repeatedly says he would rather not have us ignorant.  Now it does say in 1 Timothy 2:9 that an elder must hold to the deep things of God with a clear conscience--he is obliged to have the lowdown on doctrine and be able to correct those who contradict it.

The believer must be cognizant that he has decided to be a disciple or "learner" while being enrolled in the school of Christ and dedicated to His curriculum all his life--the search for God and truth never ends and one should never be complacent and think he knows it all, but always positive and receptive to learning more and never even getting tired with the milk of the Word, even when we crave the meat or solid food and have been weaned from our spiritual infancy. "As the newborn baby desires the pure milk of the Word" so are we to never get bored with Scripture or be blase and apathetic, which Christ calls lukewarm and is odious to Him in Revelation 3:19.

Our knowledge of God does no good remaining just "theory" or knowledge that isn't applied.  In other words, we don't pursue knowledge as an end in itself or, you could say, for its own sake.  Yes, it is a sign of spiritual health to be interested in spiritual matters, and in the 17th century it was the hobby of a gentleman to be conversant with theology or "God-talk;" however, one can get spiritual "intoxicated" with the deeper truths and become unbalanced and losing focus of the basics of our faith, especially the marching orders of Christ, the Great Commission

But knowledge about God should ultimately lead to knowledge of God and a closer relationship with Him, because "knowledge puffs up [making us feel superior and important, as it were]"  according to 1 Cor. 8:1.  I  have it said by friends that they want to take a college course on the Bible to learn it in more detail.  I have to ask them "Why?"  Do they feel led by the Spirit to do this or do they just have a desire to be "informed" or in the know about spiritual matters?  If they have been called to teach it may be necessary to prepare for a life-long study of the Scriptures, but to do do it for its own sake, as an end in itself, if vain in God's eyes and will accomplish nothing.

I'm not for ignorance, but I am against knowledge without purpose and end in mind, (knowledge is the means to an end).  You can be so preoccupied with the Word, actually doing nothing but reading it all day like a monastic monk and not apply it:  "Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only." We must not only intake but have output to be healthy.  Just like inhaling and exhaling for our bodies. The proof of the pudding is in the eating they say; what kind of believer we are depends upon our attitude toward Scripture.

You must contemplate why you are pursuing knowledge and you must also distinguish knowledge of God from mere knowledge about God.  You can literally know a lot about someone and not really know them at all on a personal level, too, as an analogy.  The goal is a relationship with Christ and a closer walk with Him.   According to Colossians 1:10 we are:  "Bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God."  See how they correlate?  Putting our knowledge into action reinforces it and cements it into our spirit and makes it good for something--not just theory or philosophy.  Two extremes to avoid are having Bible fatigue on the one hand whereas we get bored and it has lost its zing and being engrossed in the Bible in an academic approach on the other hand, like just having the desire to know all the answers.

One doesn't have to be privy to some secret, arcane, or academic knowledge to know the Lord (in fact you may know very little and know the Lord quite well), and make the same mistakes as the Gnostikoi in the Apostolic age who claimed that knowledge was the secret of salvation and they were "in the know" (gnosis means to know).  We are responsible for what we know or had the opportunity to know (no one can claim ignorance--there is no excuse for not knowing God) and God distributes gifts according to our abilities and His purposes, not ours.  Some may have the gift of knowledge, for instance, and God may entrust them with much knowledge, wisdom and understanding.  Much knowledge is a byproduct of a productive life, not the goal itself.  Just like one may acquire a knowledge of trivia unconsciously and know more than he realizes.

Knowledge per se is not the measure of a believer's productiveness, because we are rewarded according to what we sow, not what we know!  Just imagine someone saying he wants to study medicine but has no plans to practice medicine, or one who go to law school for the heck of it and doesn't want to practice law!  We must be practicing theologians putting our faith into action!  They say that if you can't do, you must teach;  that is one option and that is probably why we have preachers professors, and even scholars who are heavy on the learning and light on the application.
  Soli Deo Gloria!

Does God Seem Too Small?

J. B. Phillips wrote the book Your God Is Too Small.  And Martin Luther replied to Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam that his God is too small too, in that he said, "Your thoughts of God are too human!"

J. I. Packer says he hears often:  "I like to think of God as the great Architect (or Mathematician or even Artist)."  "I don't think of God as a Judge," "I like to think of him simply as a Father."  This is a prime example of putting God in a box or limiting God who is infinite and cannot be defined.

We don't define or label God (He only can do this), but He can do that to us.  Like a psychiatrist that labels a patient as manic-depressive, Jesus cannot be labeled by a shrink; he is too balanced and normal!  It is obvious that Christ was in full possession of His faculties, even though He claimed outright deity:  His teachings are not the rantings and ravings of a madman.  "Canst thou by search find out [figure God out] God?"  (Job 11:7).  There is always more to God than we apprehend, and we will be learning about God and getting to know Him throughout eternity (the finite cannot contain(or grasp) the infinite, the Greeks said).

"With God nothing shall be impossible," (Luke 1:37).  But God cannot be God, or do something against or contrary to His essence or nature.  God is logical; therefore, we have math and reasoning ability and we can reason with God.  Can God make 1 + 1 = 3?  No, that is not a question of the omnipotence (God is almighty) or plenipotence of God, but a matter of arithmetic!  Can God make a stone too big to lift?  No!  No matter how you answer the question, you are limiting God.

In the same reality, an immovable stone, and an unlimited force cannot exits--it's that simple (either way God would cease being God and there are certain things God has decided not to do).  God is so so big that everything is small to Him!   His love is so great that no detail or trivia is too small (like the number of the hairs on your head or the lighting of a sparrow.  Conversely, nothing is too big for God, since he is bigger than everything.

Don't ever think that some request you have for God is a "bother" or too insignificant to waste God's time (God does not live in the time-space continuum and time is irrelevant to Him!).  Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it cannot happen--there's always a first time.  Don't ever get discouraged by statistics or odds, such as in recovery from illness!

How else do we limit God and make Him out to be too small?  You cannot limit the attributes of God!  For instance, you cannot say that God cannot forgive suicide or some heinous sin (even Judas could have been forgiven and Hitler could have had deathbed repentance)--that is limiting the love and mercy of God.  With God, forgiveness is a matter of quality, not quantity.   If we limit God in any way our God is too small.

Putting God in a box is the third way to have a small God:  Whenever you say, "I like to think of God as so and so."  Einstein thought of God as a mathematical mind and superior reasoning power revealed in the universe.  Some people like to think of God as a sentimental old Grandfather who dotes on us and spoils us, even being slightly senile and permissive.  Other's think of God (and they did this in antiquity) that God is like us, only more so--in other words he also lusts and just has superhuman strength like Zeus. and Hercules his son. The philosophers were embarrassed at their mythical gods.  Some people merely say, "I like to think of God as a mean Judge or a good Father.  Remember that we are imago Dei or in the image of God and we must be less than Him and not vice versa.

Examples to ponder:  The Indians thought of God as a Great Spirit in the sky.  The Romans thought Jews were atheists because they worshiped a God they couldn't see and was just in their imaginations or mind.  We could say God is Mr. Nice Guy and just think that God is always nice and never stern or strict, but a pushover and easygoing as it were.  We have a saying in Minnesota that we call something "Minnesota nice." Jonathan Edwards, initiating the Great Awakening, in 1741 preached the sermon:  "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry [God is also love] God."   I understand that God defines what nice is, but we tend to put God in a box when we go "beyond that which is written" and make our own definitions of God:  It is true that God is love; God is light; God is true, God is love, et cetera, because these expressions are biblical.  Be aware that when we say, "God is good," we are to also realize that Romans 11:22 says, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity [sternness] of God."  That is, never one at the expense of the other or compromising the other. [Emphasis mine.]

It is a sin to presume on God's nature:  "God will forgive me, for that's His business," it has been said. When we know something is a sin and deliberately insist on doing it, it is presumptuous and willful sin and David asked God to keep him from this in Psalm 19:13 says, "Keep me from willful sin  (presumptuous sin)."  I do not believe in the doctrine of "entire sanctification" or perfectionism wherein we no longer willing sin and can say, unlike the apostle Paul, that we have "arrived."

Finally, because we are the offspring of God, as Paul said in Acts 17:28 saying, " ... As some of your poets have said, 'We are His offspring.'''  What this implies is that there is no evolution--we have devolved and gotten worse, not better.  God is greater than man because  He created us and you have to be greater than something to create it.  We are in His image implies that we alone can communicate with God and are made for Him and His pleasure.

Another way we limit God is to take one attribute at the expense of the others and believe in a just God, but not a loving and merciful God. Note that mercy is withholding justice or what is due, and grace is going beyond and giving what we don't deserve, instead of our due (which is justice).   You cannot always say that God shows justice to everyone because He withholds it in mercy and grace in some of His choosing, but He is unjust to no one!  Not showing justice or non-justice is not injustice and the Supreme Judge has this right at His discretion,  We can say that God is just, but not justice epitomized!  The Bible says not only that God loves, but that He is love (this is the very essence of His character and the Bible doesn't say He has love either).  It doesn't say God is goodness, but that He is good; there is a nuance of meaning here to recognize.   To reiterate:  Having mercy and showing grace are not forms of injustice! We say that the holiness of God regulates His attributes and keeps them in balance to that we cannot put God in a box:  God is infinite by definition!

Some people like to think of Jesus as the nice one, the Father as the stern one, and the Holy Spirit as the mysterious one!  Jesus said that if we have seen (beheld) Him, we have seen the Father.  To believe is to see, not to see is to believe ("But we see Jesus..." (Hebrews 2:9). What Jesus meant is that He is the ikon or image of God and everything we need to know or see is in beholding Him "Look to Me and be saved," (Isaiah 45:22).  There is nothing "un-Jesus-like" in the Father and so forth; one is not "nicer" than the other or has more of the attributes:  They are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent.  They all have the same essence even though they are different persons and we say there is merely one God and we must find God's will and seek God's glory.  (Soli Deo Gloria!)

In summation, if we limit God, we are limiting ourselves and what we can become in Christ, who is the ikon, the image of God (cf. Col. 1:15).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Praying Like A Son

"Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). We are to avail ourselves of the whole Trinity in our prayers, utilizing the power of the Spirit, the authority of the Son, to approach the Father.  We often accept the lordship of Christ (which is usually exercised through the body, the church), but often fail to realize our potential and privilege to step into the Father's presence and accept His Fatherhood.

When we pray we should pray as if it all depends on God and we should live as if it all depends on us.  But how many of us pray like Jesus meant us to incorporate our sonship rights and privileges to claim what is ours in Christ?  Some pray to unknown deities or generic titles, not really knowing to whom they are praying ("O God..."); this sounds like they hardly know their Savior--which member of the Godhead do they mean?  Any god would suffice in such a case and it is not specific enough to show our familiarity with the Godhead as we employ the proper formula for prayer:  to the Father, in the name of the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.  Why not go to the top?  The Father is the Most High and He has an open-door policy with us so that we can gain access or entree in His Son's name.

The true son of God is acquainted with the Father in prayer and utilizes the filling of the Holy Spirit to pray with power.  "Pray in the Spirit," says Jude.  Some believers are indeed servants of the Lord, but Jesus commanded us to pray to the Father (He doesn't give recommendations or suggestions).  In the church body or assembly of believers, it is only appropriate to pray as taught and any violation is disobeying God, not just some doctrine.   "...' You shall call Me, My Father.." (Jer. 3:19 NASB).  I once went to a Bible camp where Pentecostals prayed to Jesus;  I objected and insisted on praying to my Father in heaven.  It is absolutely to pray for the salvation or sinner's prayer to the Lord Jesus, though.  Remember that God is not the author of confusion, but a God of order, organization, and authority! "Let everything be done decently and in order," says Paul to the Corinthians.

 Satan knows we are children of the King and tries to confuse us and derail our victory in prayer.  We are "Children of the Heavenly Father," as the hymn goes.  Putting on Christ means to assume our sonship and pray like a son with boldness:  "Let us boldly approach the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).  We don't have to beg God; He is more than pleased to hear our requests and petitions.  This is faith, not a presumption on our part.

Note that God hears and answers all the prayers of the saints and our prayers demonstrate our relationship and familiarity with our God.  A disputed verse that some "Jesus only" believers use is John 14:14 that says, "If you ask Me anything in My name I will do it."  The word "Me" is not in all manuscripts and is in question, and even if it is there, it is not wrong to pray to Jesus, per se, but we should also pray to our Heavenly Father as taught on the Sermon on the Mount in obedience.

Finally, we must have the attitude that we don't need a study on prayer or a course, but just need to pray!  "I don't have a theology on prayer, I just pray!"  You already know enough to be a prayer warrior and this study is only how we get started in addressing God in a biblical manner. Now, in conclusion, avail yourself of your God-given rights to pray as a son and take advantage of the opportunities it affords in everyday prayer!   Soli Deo Gloria!

Going By Your Conscience?

Are you justified in obeying your conscience?  Can it be wrong?  Is it innate and inborn or developed and nurtured?   Do we inherit it or is it God-given because we are in the image of God?  I posit that we do not instantly know right and wrong from birth ("Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies" [Ps. 58:3]).  The conscience is different in each individual and may be destroyed or muffled by ignoring it or highly fine-tuned by obeying it when we say we have a sensitive conscience.  The criminal in jail for stealing may condemn someone for "stealing" his cigarettes.

Jiminy Cricket said to always obey your conscience.  This only is safe if our conscience is edified by the Word of God as Martin Luther testified to the Pope and Charles V at the Diet of Worms:  "...my conscience is held captive to the Word of God, and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."  It is no excuse to claim your conscience approves, because it can be wrong or if you have a clear conscience it means God is pleased with you--the Word of God is the standard, not you nor your conscience.

R.. C. Sproul defines conscience: The inner awareness or consciousness of right and wrong and the ability to apply sets of standards or norms to concrete situations.  This may be right and may be wrong.  Do all people know the same sense of right and wrong?  Does it happen at once or do we reach an age of reckoning or accountability that God demands we choose Him or the ways of the world?   Some people let their religious beliefs or convictions interfere with their conscience and violate it and become fanatics for a cause.  Conscience does convict us and God speaks through it:  "I speak the truth in Christ ...  my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 9:1).

The very essence of sin is to do what you know is wrong: "..to him who knows to do right and wrong, to him it is sin" (Rom. 14:23).  Isaiah 7:15  says that the child will one day be able to distinguish good from evil.  I deduce this means that it is developed over time and can be seared, scarred, hardened, or ignored because he reaches that time of the decision to go one way or the other.

What I see the conscience as is not a set of standards, but the ability to develop them and it is part of being in the image of God. Good advice from Paul:  "I strive to keep my conscience clear before God and before man" (Acts 24:16).   An analogy is that we are born with the ability to speak, but must develop and nurture or train and practice to perfect it.  God simply doesn't expect much from a young conscience as the well-refined one.  Soli Deo Gloria! 

Drawing The Line

Where do human rights and religious freedom conflict?  Many Christians are against gay marriage and rightly so, for it is not biblical (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9) nor sanctioned as God's plan for man.  But all humans have rights bestowed by God, such as the right to survive which includes the right to look for work or to eat.  We are all sinners and it would be like saying you don't want to serve an alcoholic or a felon.

One cannot deny basic rights conferred by God because said person is a sinner who offends you (this is not promoting or approving their lifestyle).   It would only be prejudice to refuse some service at a restaurant because everyone has a right to eat and this doesn't conflict with any doctrine or teaching of Scripture--all humans are to be treated with respect and dignity as they are all in the image of God, even though marred and tarnished.  Now if the government told a preacher he had to perform a gay marriage, he has the right to refuse--but he may do at his peril and lose his privilege to marry!  He must be willing to pay the price for standing up for right and wrong (we believe in absolute right and wrong--some things are always right, some always wrong).

 No one should be forced to participate in gay marriage in any way that makes him an accessory such as making the wedding cake or taking pictures either (if this is interpreted as their endorsing it like having his name on it or getting publicity).  Why? This clearly goes against sound doctrine and is evil  (male and female He created them ... and said that it was very good). The freedom of religion is not absolute--one cannot say that he has the right of polygamy in America or that he is cannibalistic, for instance.  But all rights have limits (one's rights end where another person's begin): one cannot yell "fire" in a theater either. One must be very careful in legislating that could cause discrimination because that is morally wrong.

But the constitution guarantees the free practice of religion and it cannot restrict its free exercise or force someone into a creed or practice.  Forcing someone to be an accomplice in evil is clearly going over the line morally; I am not a homophobe and do not even object to gays in the military as long as logistical problems are resolved, no one is forced to get "intimate" with them, and no one's privacy is invaded.  But the government crosses the line in forcing the military to "celebrate" or even associate with gay pride in the service which I interpret as "endorsing" it.  They have a right to pride, but not in making me an accessory or accomplice.

In conclusion, the example of a caterer supplying cake to the wedding being interpreted as "endorsing" it (i.e., putting our name to it or making the news or getting publicity--note the example that Paul brings up about the meat sacrificed to idols--for conscience's sake don't ask) would be wrong, but just supplying food or cake to any sinner is not a sin because that is not "endorsing" it.  Let each act according to their own conscience, but if they act in civil disobedience, they must suffer the consequences.   You have to draw the line somewhere:  everyone could be considered an indirect accessory, even the truck driver that brought the dough, but when they "endorse" it in a legal sense we draw the line--we cannot be forced to give our approbation or imprimatur to evil.   Soli Deo Gloria!

We Are All Theologians

"You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1).
"Those who are wayward in spirit will gain understanding; those who complain will accept doctrine"  (Isaiah 29:24).
"They were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes [who footnoted and quoted the authorities]"  (Matt. 7:28,29).
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' doctrine, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer"  (Acts 2:42).
"Watch your life and doctrine closely..."  (1 Tim. 4:16).  BOLDFACE MINE.

Bear in mind that teaching is the same as doctrine, and theology or systematic theology is an organization of doctrines.  You cannot escape doctrine or you commit spiritual suicide.  Read on to see why.

Theology is not an abstract science, but the queen of sciences!   Theology is literally the study of God, while Christology is literally the study of Christ.  If you don't abide in the doctrine of Christ you don't have God (cf. 2 John 9).  If you believe in false doctrine you are a heretic if it is a major  (affirming the deity of Christ is a prerequisite for salvation,) it is a  necessary doctrine--we need to learn discernment and be orderly in our study and benefit from the scholarship of our church fathers--we don't have to start from scratch every generation---the church is Semper reformanda, or always reforming or improving; likewise our doctrine is Semper reformanda.   People sometimes refer to theologians in a derogatory manner, but I want to present them in a new light:

Where would our church be without the church fathers Athanasius, the Father of Orthodoxy, (or right doctrine), and Augustine the greatest theologian, arguably, that lived in the first millennium of church history?  We owe a debt of gratitude to giants such as John Calvin, who wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, and Jonathan Edwards who began the Great Awakening.  To put things in perspective:  the well-known theologian Karl Barth was asked what was the deepest truth he had come across and he replied, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."  Now, I know theologians get a bad rap, but here's a case on their behalf, since I have been called a theologian myself too:

To quote my favorite theologian, R. C. Sproul:  "To reject theology is to reject knowledge, this is not an option for the Christian."  Also, we cannot reject theology per se, just because there exists bad theology.  "To reject all theology just because there exists bad theology is to commit spiritual suicide," says Sproul.  Theologian is not known to be a spiritual gift because, I believe, we are all potential theologians clerically and actual practical theologians by definition.  We don't avoid theology because we have a distaste for controversy either--we are to avoid godless controversy, not necessary ones.  What if Martin Luther had never nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the Wittenberg Castle church (All Souls Church) in 1517 to initiate the Reformation?  The spirit of the Protestant is this:  I dissent, I disagree, I protest. Sproul goes on to say that you can have sound doctrine without a sound life, but not a sound life without sound doctrine--think about that!

In other words, you can excel in the study of doctrine and not know the Lord--it can all be in your head!  The presence of doctrine is necessary, but not sufficient--you must add the Holy Spirit.  Asserting that theology is not important is tantamount to saying:  "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere."  However, I want to stress, that as Protestants, we are not at the mercy of church doctrine and have the right to interpret Scripture for ourselves, but with the right comes the responsibility to interpret it right and that means eliminating subjectivism.  We cannot fabricate our own truths because no "Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20).

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:3).  I have just experienced this first hand at a Bible study tonight when the host said it was doctrine itself that turned him off to Christianity and he will have nothing to do with it.  What is doctrine, but teaching:  "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." (2 Tim. 3:16).  We all have our viewpoints and way of interpreting the Bible.  Doctrine in itself is a good thing but not an end in itself, but a means to an end and we are warned not to call good evil in Isaiah 5:20.  Knowledge of the Bible is necessary to spiritual health:  "You know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God"  (Matt. 22:29).

No one is perfectly objective except God, but have a school of thought or doctrine that we adhere to.  Examples are Arminian, charismatic, evangelical, Wesleyan, Reformed or Calvinistic, Catholic, ecumenical, and semi-Pelagian, among others.  There are the "freewillers" and the people who believe in predestination and election--that our destiny is ultimately in God's hands.  We all develop a system of doctrine and it grows as we mature in Christ.  One of the most basic doctrines we accept as Christians is the doctrine of the Trinity--so we are Trinitarians!   2 Tim. 4:3 can be translated:  "...Men will bail out theologically."

You are committing spiritual suicide and will never grow up if you ignore doctrine per se.  I'm not saying it is our goal to argue or debate doctrine, but we are to "study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed."  We are trying to catch people ultimately and win them over, not win an argument. Why do we want to know God?  To know Him is to love Him!   There is a direct correlation between our knowledge of God and our love for Him.  Be not deceived: there is a difference between knowledge of God and knowledge about God.

Systematic theology is an orderly view or presentation of the doctrines of the Bible.  Do you believe Jesus is God--that is basic doctrine and fundamental theology or "study of God" literally.  The childish believer or immature one balks at learning the deep things of God.  The man of God must hold the deep things of the word with a clear conscience (cf. 1 Tim. 3:9).  The milk of the Word is for the baby believer, but solid food or meat is for the mature or the one who discerns good and evil (cf. Heb. 5:14).

The point I'm trying to make is that we are all theologians, it's just what kind of theologian we are! You cannot escape theology or a system of theology--we all understand the Bible in a different light and one part of the body cannot say to the other that he isn't needed.  We need theologians and we are all theologians and this is no contradiction because the word has different nuances of meaning.   Theology is necessary to maturity, but not sufficient.  We can just study theology and not apply it and it will leave us cold.  We need theology but we also need to go beyond it so that we don't put God in a box and say, "I like to think of God as a ...."   We need to apply it and use it to interpret the Word.  If you believe you are saved and cannot lose your salvation you will interpret the Bible in a completely different light than if you aren't sure of your salvation or if you think you can lose it.          Soli Deo Gloria! 

Is There Political Theology?

I mean, is there a political litmus test of orthodoxy in theology?   Do our political "opinions" influence our theology?  Now, to be sure, we hold opinions, but convictions hold us.  There is something you believe, and then there is something you will die for.  For instance, in the Civil War, or the War between the States, families were often set against each other, brother against brother, and so forth.  This was such a strong political influence that people were willing to die for it and many volunteered for the war--the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry that was the first to volunteer when Pres. Lincoln called for regiments.  It should be obvious that our regional upbringing and background have a lot to do with what kind of politics we have--not many Minnesotans joined the South.

There were sincere people on both sides that believed in the same God, read the same Bible, and even belonged to the same church denomination who opposed each other.  God wasn't concerned about what so-called side they were on but the condition of their heart and whether they loved Him and their neighbors, to be specific.  He isn't going to ask us, "What side were you on in the War?" but "Did you love Me during the War?"

 It is unfortunate that in today's evangelical churches that stress is made on conservative politics, as if all Christians should be conservatives, to their definition.  You cannot put God in a box and label Him, how does one know what party God would be a member of?  Wouldn't that have to be a perfect party, since God is holy?  It is not the question asked, "Are you a Democrat or Republican? but "If you are a Democrat or Republican, do you love Republicans or Democrats?"

With all the bitterness and backbiting, and slander, libel, and insults, I really wonder if this is the case.  The point is, is that there are sincere believers on both sides, and it is just like a ballgame, in which we believe that God doesn't take sides in any way that we can figure out, but must leave the outcome to the providence of God. 

It is wrong to call a movement the "Evangelical Right" implying that this is the orthodox position and that there is a consensus here to be conservative among Christians.  Do you know that a lot of African-American Christian voters are Democrats and they are just as sincere in their faith as the White majority who vote Republican?   There ought to be a separation of church and state in the sense that churches ought to stay out of politics and stay with the main thing--the Great Commission, which is the only program they are to be converted to.  "Keep the main thing the main thing!"  I don't go to church to get propaganda about a pastor's political leanings.

 Let me apply the Bible as I see fit and leave room for disagreement in the body:  Remember Augustine's famous dictum, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." We are not to hate (and showing disrespect and dishonor is a form of it) our leaders who we elected in the providence of God is to be hypocritical to our faith--we should be trusting in God and praying for all in authority, even honoring the king, no matter who he is and how much we disagree.  Soli Deo Gloria!