How Important Is Your Worldview To Solve Everyday Problems?

"The only worldview that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point."--Athanasius
"Christ is the centre of Christianity; all else is circumference."--John Stott
"If I want to know how to live in reality, I must know what God is really like."--Plato

Theology has been called the Queen of sciences, and Christianity is the Mother of modern science because its worldview has shaped Western Civilization; the point is that if there is a God who judges, creates, rules, legislates, and loves, then this is the most important study, but if there is no God, all religion and theology is a waste of time and irrelevant. Thus, the first major question of whether there is a God is posed by A. W. Tozer, who says, "What we think about God is the most important thing about us."

We are all on a great quest for certainty, dignity, purpose, fulfillment, and meaning in life, and this is where our worldview comes into play. But note: Only in Christianity is man's diagnosis sin, and solved (salvation) via God's grace through an act of faith in Christ--Christianity is unique in contrast to all religions in this perspective of man. We must be forewarned that today's society has become highly pluralistic and isn't a melting pot anymore, but multicultural, many believe no religion can be true, but all are equally valid, contradictions are fully acceptable, and therefore we must tolerate every faith, and live and let live.

There are a plethora of worldviews or "isms" out there in academia and religious establishments, and one eventually must fly the colors of one or the other, choosing one that suits his fancy, as it were--they cannot be avoided! But one should never choose a worldview that just makes him feel at ease and comfortable, that he has no objections to or cannot be controversial--the truth can be stranger than fiction and our imagination. Sometimes the truth hurts and causes a sword to be drawn, even dividing families because of their convictions.

Our ethics and morals are determined by our worldview too, and what we think we can get away with. If you don't believe in ultimate justice, you might tend to desire to take the law into your own hands, and won't limit your revenge to the eye-for-an-eye principle. To get more concrete, believing in hell is an uncomfortable proposition, but Christians affirm this, despite the rejection by other worldviews. We don't just believe to be safe and not to offend people, sometimes we must be willing to pay the price for what we believe, even willing to die for our convictions (not opinions, though). If you aren't willing to die for your faith, you probably don't have one worth believing or living.

The chief reason academics affirm the theory of evolution is fear of rejection by their peers and possibly losing the tenure of their professorship. Evolution offers answers without God in the metric!  They say evolution is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith," yes faith! Peer pressure is a prime motivator for some people. We all, including scientists, make decisions based on reason (it seems rational); emotions (it feels right); culture (everyone is doing it); and even tradition (we've always done it).

We don't necessarily discount these factors, but must put them in their place and perspective: Tradition must bow to conviction and be concordant with Scripture; culture must be Christ-centered and have values consistent with it; our reason must be valid and defensible in the public marketplace of ideas, and our emotions must not rule our thinking, but the result of our faith and will, not its slave. We must stand up for the truth and fly our Christian colors!

The major worldviews, mostly Secularism, Islam, Marxism, Postmodernism, New Age, and, of course, Christianity are all in contradistinction, except that they all (except Christianity) agree that Christianity is dangerous and evil and must be debunked and not even tolerated. Marxists say, "God does not, cannot, and must not exist"--Secularists will not let a Divine Foot in the door! Their goal is to kick Christ out of the open square, the classroom, and all of academia! The reason for all this is that Satan is the author of them all except the true one of Christianity, for he is the author of confusion and no truth is in him.

The most dangerous factor is that there is just enough truth to deceive and allure the weak and naive and to inoculate them from the real thing (knowing Jesus). The prevalent idea of truth is that it's only relative and there is no absolute and universal truth to aspire to.

Most secular worldviews dodge the no-truth bullet and take values, morals, ethics, creation, and all this entails as a given, without any plausible explanation! Only those of the truth hear the truth and Christ's voice of reason (cf. John 18:37) and those who "reject the truth" are the unredeemed (cf. Rom. 2:8). They tell you in school that you can know nothing for certain, and they are certain of that--this has no truth value!

We must experience Jesus personally to know He is good and will guide us into all truth through the Holy Spirit's ministry (cf. John 16:13; 1 Pet. 1:2). Many people rule out the Christian worldview without a fair appraisal and have presumed there is no God from the get-go, and have therefore concluded that evolution (the building-block of Secularism) is a valid theory, despite that fact that evidence is hard to come by and there is no fossil evidence of missing and transitional links to prove it. It is unproven and cannot be proved, since one-time historical events, such as creation, are outside the province of scientific empiricism. History and therefore creation are unrepeatable events.

We can thank the Founding Fathers for having a Christian worldview, even though most weren't professing believers, and we should be concerned that other worldviews are ascending the stage in our nation, even forcing out the God-oriented-and-focused one. For instance, be glad, that we have rights because we are in the image of God, as foreseen by our Forefathers, and human life has dignity. We have inherited these views, but they are under assault and must be defended.

The Christian worldview outshines all others and provides answers that others are at a loss to solve. But secularists are prejudiced and will believe anything as long as God is not in the picture and they can make up their moral code and compass and live by their own rule of faith, being free from the constraints and limits of the Christian faith, which might be too high a price to pay.

Christ promised that the truth will set us free (cf. John 8:32) and it turns out that He is the Answerer and we are illuminated by the Holy Spirit as we accept Christ by faith and God shows us the way to live (hence the faith was referred to originally as The Way). If someone doesn't know Christ or is naive, he is susceptible to erroneous worldviews and becomes drawn into their net, because he doesn't have the answers, is ill-prepared to defend his faith, and may not even know what he believes!

It is not necessary to examine every worldview, or find a guru, to choose the correct one! Christ can open a person's eyes and show the way, the truth, and the life to set him free. All religions are basically the same and man essentially believes he is good and can work his way to heaven or God, and can please or ingratiate God on his own; if one assesses the depravity of man in the Bible, it teaches contrariwise and shows us depraved, inherently and evil--only able to sin, or unable not to sin, needing redemption and salvation (for sin is the problem, not being unenlightened).

Only Christianity speaks of a Savior and a God who rescues us from ourselves, sin, Satan, death, and hell. In contradistinction to all religions, Christianity says, "Tetelestai," "Done," or fait accompli ("it is finished," or "Paid in Full" or it's a Done Deal); religion all says, "Do." The whole point of religion is lifting ourselves by our bootstraps and it's all a "do-it-yourself" proposition, while Christianity is what God does for us.

Thus there is a common thread throughout all "isms" except Christianity, and for this reason, we can eliminate all the competition as being fallacious and a lie from Satan. There's a caveat: There's a war of "isms" out in the real world or the secular world that doesn't know Christ, and ideas have consequences--it does matter what we believe!

Each worldview tends to answer the ultimate questions and dilemmas of mankind: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Is there such a thing as right and wrong and are we responsible and culpable? Is there a God? Each worldview attempts to "save" mankind in some manner of religious activity, (you don't have to be a member of a religion to be religious or exhibit religiosity). The most perplexing problems are whether life is worth living and whether there is meaning to life, besides basic hormones and instincts.

Religions are wholly inadequate in their solutions and come up short in explaining reality--they escape from it and avoid it. People want to believe they can be good without God, thus justifying themselves (the basis of Secular-Humanism) and that God is irrelevant, if He does exist, and cannot help us--we must save ourselves!

However, man will not admit he needs God and is a sinner by nature, by choice, and by birth without intervening wooing and conviction of the Holy Spirit--this is what's wrong with man! The all-encompassing question that must be answered is this: How then shall we live? Man is a religious being and "will worship something" (Dostoevsky), if not God, for man is hard-wired for worship, thus denying God is the epitome of wrong living and all of society suffers the result.

We don't have to be able to prove everything we believe to believe in Christ or accept Him by faith, and being a believer doesn't mean one has all the answers, because faith is a continuum of doubt from skepticism to certitude, but experience in Christ is designed to satisfy the soul's hunger for the truth and gives true peace with God, others, and ourselves. We just go ahead and believe and become Christians despite our doubts and questions can believe anyway, and are rewarded by the experience of Christ in our hearts, which cannot be denied, but can only be known first-hand, not second-hand (but we must take the leap of faith).

The error we must avoid is to cast only Christians as people of faith because Secular-Humanism is a faith and a declared religion too--they place their faith, even betting the farm on it, that science has the answer and will solve our problems eventually. Faith in science is still faith! It's not a matter of faith versus reason, but which set of presuppositions you accept as your starting point, i.e., is there a God? There are consequences of living in the here and now and not in light of eternity, to live for pleasure and self--and only Christianity rescues man from this plight.

We must realize our Christian faith is relevant to all of life, and every major academic discipline is rooted in the Bible there is no such thing as a secular versus a sacred area of academics, but Christ is the basis for all truth, for all truth is God's truth (Augustine) and meets at the top (Aquinas). God wants us to get our thinking in line with Scripture and to cast down every imagination of man that opposes the truth (cf. 2 Cor. 10:4-5). Romans 12:2 exhorts us to "renew our minds" in the image of Christ (think clearly with a divine viewpoint); get your thinking straightened out!

The building block of Secularism is evolution, and we deny that it changes the narrative. The Bible sheds light on the truth that we are created in God's image by a loving Creator who has provided redemption through Christ. In the final analysis, we must wonder whether our faith is not only valid, and supplies the appropriate answers, but whether it's worthy of our faith, not just that it works, for even yoga works--just being rational is no reason per se either--Christianity has a rationale, is defensible, a rational, but it's not rationalism. Soli Deo Gloria!

Knowing Truth...

 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," according to Prov. 1:7.  In the Bible, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding are linked. They lead to each other. If you know things, you can be wise with that knowledge, understand it, and use it to the best means and ends. We are to increase in our knowledge of the Lord. 

Jesus claimed to come to bear witness of the truth and that those who belong to the truth will listen to Him (John 18:37) and even said He is the epitome of truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6).   Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:7). Because of Christ, we have universal, objective, transcendent, absolute, and timeless truth to live by. 

One must ultimately ask: on what basis do you define or reckon knowledge? It cannot always be certain but must be true to the best possible proof and belief. Without reference to God, can there be any real knowledge? Can you make truth claims when the God of truth doesn’t exist and you deny absolute truth? Knowledge must be accepted and believed! Denying knowledge is denying reality in a way as is not knowing the truth and inventing your own truth.

All in all, one must be justified to believe in knowledge. But what we now have in a secular society is a way to be intellectually fulfilled and have the answers without God in the metric especially by appealing to evolution or saying that science is the answer; au contraire, God is the only Answerer!

The starting point as far as the world or secular society (Secular Humanism) is concerned is mankind as the "measure of all things" or reference point. They believe in commencing with man and contemplating, understanding, and explaining or explaining away God!  Athanasius said that the only system of thought God will fit into is the one where He is the starting point: we begin with God and explain reality or the world, not vice versa. 

Reality has to correspond with the truth and if Christianity is true, then its concept of reality is worth studying and living by. If not, then it is completely irrelevant.  Postmodern philosophy says that "God is dead" and this means God is no longer relevant, meaningful, necessary, or helpful in understanding reality and the world; they only want to believe what science can prove as absolute truths and not what God reveals. 

This is a philosophy and not science and should be called "scientism." That is very apparent when people harness science for unscientific reasons such as making philosophical proclamations as Carl Sagan said, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Science cannot know this and this statement cannot be subject to the scientific method. Science is not the only means of gaining absolute or perfect knowledge.  

The point is that without God, we can know nothing at all, we need an infinite reference to understand a finite reference point!  For instance, if there is no God, life has no ultimate meaning and unless there is a God, all things are up for grabs and all things are permissible because we have no reason to believe in morals at all except for selfish preservation like a survival instinct.  To have firm branches, we need firm roots and our worldview is like our roots!  It is the foundation that our knowledge depends upon!  

Because of God, we can say that we can know things for certain (we have a firm foundation) and that morals are absolute and not relevant to the person or situation. When you say that truth itself is relative, is that statement relative? When you say that you must not believe anything someone tells you about God, should we believe that person? When you say that you can know nothing for certain, can we trust that person is certain, and can he be certain?  Soli Deo Gloria!

Knowing The Answerer ...

 

Socrates wisely said that ignorance is the prerequisite for learning and often its outcome; that you must admit your ignorance!   We must always have epistemological humility and not become cocky or a know-it-all even if we know more than the average Joe or our way around the block theologically.  It is vain and presumptuous to think you know all the answers when you don't 'know the Answerer. |Even then, your knowledge is limited.  Knowledge puffs up.  If any man that thinks he knows something, doesn't yet know as he ought to know. (cf 1 Cor. 8:2).  

That is, we must not have self-confidence but God-confidence. We get our eyes off Christ and think can teach ourselves as spiritual Lone Rangers without the aid of teachers or pastors. We must never be complacent just to be theologically correct.  Even though we are to contend for the faith and beware of false doctrine and "doctrines of demons" or even "strange teachings."  We all have the anointing and are able to interpret scripture.  

But that doesn't preclude the gifts of the Spirit in the body of Christ to bring us to maturity and disciple us.  Some know just enough to be dangerous.   Remember, it's the half-educated that thinks he knows what he doesn't know and refuses to seek help from those who may know more like a doctor referring a specialist. There is "knowledge falsely so-called" and not biblical and that of the world and I want to mention the Great Lie of evolution as an example. 

We must realize our limits and learn that we can and must learn from others as God gifts the entire body in various ways to be a blessing.   We must realize as Christians we are always learning but some are never coming to a knowledge of the truth. In sum, Sir Francis Bacon wisely said according to Proverbs 24:5, "Knowledge is power." 

"The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly" (Proverbs 15:14, NIV).
"Only simpletons believe everything they're told" (Prov. 14:15, NLT).
"The lips of the wise broadcast knowledge [feed many]" (Prov. 15:7, HCSB).
"...[U]ntil the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts" (2 Pet. 1:19, NIV).
"...If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn" (Isa. 8:20, NIV).
"[W]ho carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers" (Isa. 44:26, NIV).
"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." --old saying that rings true biblically.

The Christian ought to be humble regarding what he knows for sure and can't be dogmatic about and what is a matter of opinion. There will come a time when we beg to differ! As Protestants, we must utter: "I disagree, I dissent, I protest." Augustine's dictum applies here: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Paul also warned (cf. 1 Cor. 8:2, NIV) that "the man who thinks he knows something doesn't yet know as he ought to know." Socrates said that we cannot learn until we admit our ignorance; we must admit we could be wrong! Plato taught that all knowledge begins in faith and the Bible teaches it commences with the fear of the Lord (cf. Prov. 1:7). While Bacon said, "Knowledge is power" (cf. Prov. 24:5) love is the goal in the application.

When we disagree with believers, it ought to be in a humble attitude, not condescending or disdainful. The problem with most people is that what they know "ain't so!" People are so filled with misinformation, propaganda, disinformation, and lies from Satan, even heresies and false doctrines of demons, that they don't recognize the truth when it strikes a note. The truth should resonate and strike a chord that vibrates in the soul, hitting home where it counts!

Most people have opinions, and opinions are what you hold, but convictions hold you! Most people twist the facts to fit their theories and only believe what they agree with already! Most people don't hold any cherished beliefs they would kill or even die for if necessary--they're just opinions. And most people have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with the facts! Most people talk because they have to say something, while the wise talk because they have something to say; viva la difference! We must have several attitudes to be teachable: a willing spirit, an obedient and needy heart, and an open mind (we must not be looking for a fight or something to disagree or take issue with).

We need to be thirsty for the truth if we are to achieve it, and no one has a monopoly on the truth no matter how gifted they are--they're only part of the puzzle or picture (IT'S A BIG STORY AND WE'RE ONLY PART OF IT!) and the whole body needs and works together. But the strengths of one person are complemented by those of others and there is a coordinated search for truth, not the blind leading the blind. It is vital that we realize that all teachers are human and must not pontificate like the Pope or believe he has the right to speak ex-cathedra or from the chair (i.e., of St. Peter in Rome).

We all must admit that we are to edify and teach each other and use our gifts to build up the body accordingly. I know of several Christian authors that I disagree with on certain items or doctrines, but that doesn't keep me from reading them, for they are scholars in their own right and know what they are talking about. There is always an ear to hear or heed a person with a message (written or oral).

We have reached a level of maturity when we can distinguish our beliefs and our ignorance (know what you know and what you don't!), and be able to read writings of those we find occasion to disagree with but are still challenging or edifying; don't just read those we are inclined to agree with perfectly! No one should feel he has to agree with everything some writer or teacher puts out, but God will bless the search for the truth. It's a no-brainer that we shouldn't seek out teachers who say just what we want to say with itching ears.

Don't believe everything you hear or read, but search the Scriptures if there's a question or doubt. Even Socrates had to awaken from his dogmatic slumber to start learning. But one thing is certain: God will work through the body and we ought to take heed to what the Spirit reveals to it through gifted individuals, for God can speak through a child! All in all, we must never claim to know all the answers but to be part of the answer or solution, not part of the problem.

NB: The whole church was wrong about the sun revolving around the earth and Galileo was put under house arrest during the Catholic Inquisition. Also, the Reformation itself was proof that the established church can be in error.

CAVEAT: ONE SHOULD BEWARE LEST HE BECOMES A KNOW-IT-ALL AND PUT MORE WEIGHT ON HIS SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT THAN WHAT IS DUE; WE MUST KNOW OUR LIMITS OR DOMAIN AND AREA OF ENLIGHTENMENT, EXPERTISE, AND GIFTING. In closing, G. K. Chesterton said, quite tongue in cheek, "We have found all the questions, now let's find the answers." Soli Deo Gloria!

What Philosophical Argument For God Is Difficult To Refute?...

Like Aristotle reasoned, the “First Cause” (Causa Prima) or the unmoved mover. According to the law of motion from Newton, an object at rest tends to stay at rest…. Who caused the first motion and got the ball rolling? Who banged the Big Bang? Nothing happens by itself but every event must be caused. Nothing causes itself. If you heard an explosion outside, you’d wonder what caused it—it didn't just happen by itself.

There can be uncaused causes but not uncaused events. Self-existence is not only possible but rationally necessary—the necessary Being. God is that uncaused cause because He is eternal and therefore had no beginning. If there was no first cause, there would be no beginning, but we know there was a big bang. What existed before the singularity? What existed before that? ad Infinitum. If you say, “It was just there, that's no different than saying God was just there.

If you say that something existed before that to cause it, it was either caused or uncaused and you only compound the question and must admit there has to be a first cause or self-existent force, being, or thing that is eternal. Science doesn’t generally accept the fact that matter is eternal or the theory of an eternal universe. This is often called the cosmological argument for God and refers to the law of cause and effect. The so-called kalam cosmological argument states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began and therefore has a cause (most believably God); also, everything in the time-space continuum has a beginning.

“For every house is built by someone; but God is the builder of all things,”(cf. Heb. 3:4). That’s why the Bible begins: “In the beginning God….” We must begin with God in the equation to remain rational. We cannot assume everything had a beginning or was caused because then there would be nothing in existence for it’s impossible to cross infinity and infinite regress is impossible—you must begin somewhere with something or someone. A was caused by B caused by C … somewhere you run out of letters.

The Old Humanism...

"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep." --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow


Humanism isn't a newfangled idea or concept but was an idea concocted or developed by the Greeks in antiquity. They sought to make man the measure of all things or that everything is related to man and interpreted with him in mind (known as Homo mensura in Greek). This was promulgated chiefly by Protagoras. The actual roots stem from ancient times (postdiluvian or after the Noachian flood, aka the Deluge) when the people sought to make a name for themselves (cf. Gen. 11:4). Man has always had trouble with the truth because his pride gets in the way; he tends not to accept the authority of God and seeks to be his own man. Sin is basically that: the declaration of independence from God. As it is written (Rom. 1:28, HCSB): "And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God...." In fact, Voltaire went so far as to define God thus: "Man has created God in his image." And Sigmund Freud went on to insult God as being a "projection."


By definition, humanism is the deifying of man and the dethroning of God! Men have tried to make a name for themselves since the tower of Babel (cf. Gen. 11:4). Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed unashamedly that "God is dead," which meant that He either doesn't exist or is totally irrelevant. They exalt man and ignore God or make Him irrelevant, even declaring Him dead. What kind of God dies? But our God refuses to and will not die! What they are doing is worshiping man, because man is by nature a religious creature that is hard-wired to worship someone or something and never can claim to worship nothing even if he's a self-proclaimed nihilist or atheist. They are parading themselves and are braggadocious of their own achievements, not God's accomplishment, and in this way are very religious. John Dewey, who co-wrote Humanist Manifesto [I], in his book Common Faith, posited that we can be "religious" without "religion" or claiming no official or affiliated religion.


It sounds offensive to say, "Glory to man in the highest!" This is counter-intuitive but is what they are maintaining unawares. Man is not worthy of worship but man cannot but worship someone or something. Humanists tend to live in the here and now and refuse to let God into the reckoning. Without God in the equation, man is without purpose and hope and is empty. This void or God-shaped vacuum can only be filled by God according to Blaise Pascal! Sartre said that unless one considers God in the picture, man is a "useless passion." Christians, on the other hand, live their lives in light of eternity, not just for the mundane and the present circumstances--they can live above them and have hope for the future that lifts the spirit. Augustine of Hippo is known for maintaining that man is restless until he finds his rest in God.


Humanists live for themselves like animals in heat avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. But Christians live for God and have a higher purpose in living that brings meaning and definition. They have a destiny to live out and a reason for being. I want to point out that even Christians can become humanists by letting their pride get in the way and becoming self-centered and selfish and losing track of the will of God, seeking short-term pleasure in life instead of a life defeating evil and the power of sin. And when Solomon says that there's nothing new under the sun, he's right in that even Adam and Eve were humanists when they ate of the proverbial apple and sought their own wisdom, pleasure, and meaning in life independent of God's will and love.


We must realize that God has a purpose for everyone and Christians realize fulfillment in God only. God even made the wicked for the day of evil. When we have served our purpose God may call us home to glory, but we're all here for a purpose that we may not be aware of. Paul said in Col. 1:16 (MSG): "...[E]verthing got started in him and finds its purpose in him." We are all here for a reason and must never say as the old proverb goes: "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!" Those famous words are in Scripture and man has always been guilty of this kind of thinking.


Julian Huxley wrote Religion without Revelation to point out that we can be good without God and don't need God or believe in absolutes to have ethics or morals. That's basically what Satan has always tried to convince man since the Garden of Eden: We can be good without God, or we can be as gods! This is what's so deceiving of false religions because they may seem good on the outside and people are tricked into thinking that they mean well, but Satan knows how to insert just enough error to be dangerous and inoculate one from the truth and deceive with an element of truth.


In conclusion, we'll never arrive at objective truth (true regardless of whether it's believed and apart from personal input or perspective) unless we start with God in the picture, as Athanasius said, "The only system of thought into which Jesus Christ will fit is the one in which He is the starting point." We must not begin with man and explain the universe or explain away God, but must begin with God and explain everything else: reality, man, the world with all the academic disciplines, current events, and history. The Bible starts out as rational,, "In the Beginning," and it's theological as well as rational, even without realizing it or becoming atheists, they are practical atheists maintaining: "Down with God; up with man!" Au contraire! The divine viewpoint should be: "All the world is relative to Christ," according to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Carl Henry said, "The Christian belief system is relevant to all of life." Soli Deo Gloria  

Epistemological Breakthrough

I am appalled at the relative ignorance of journalists about the science of epistemology. They let contributors get away with just about any assertion or even allegation, without challenge. We have a right to opine or believe what we want, but we don't have the right to fabricate our own truths; however, some people have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with the facts. The truth is true whether one believes in it or not--i.e., objective truth--and no matter who says it. Even experts speaking in the area of their expertise (and often they are deemed authorities outside their domain), can be wrong. Let me give you a for instance: When investigating history, a secular historian trumps a biblicist of the first order, a theologian, biblical scholar, expositor, or whosoever.

The Bible has never been proved wrong historically, though many have attempted to do so, and this begs the question: "Why should it be considered unreliable or have dubious authenticity or veracity. There is ample evidence to support its claims and even archaeology has never contravened a biblical reference (with over 25,000 excavation sites or digs). The burden of proof, historically (per Socrates dictum), is on the person challenging the authority of the Scriptures, not the Bible, which is self-attesting because it has to be, or it couldn't claim ultimate authority in itself.

The only faith and worldview that has EVIDENCE to back it up and isn't based on pure blind faith is the Judaeo-Christian one. There's no evidence that Muhammad was spoken to by Gabriel--in fact, it controverts what we know about him from the Bible, because he proclaimed Christ to be the Son of God, and the Koran says Jesus is just the prophet that preceded Muhammad, though He is called the Christ or Messiah, He is given no divine status! Why would an angel contradict himself?

I want to see journalists challenge the persons of interest that they are interviewing and learn to direct the conversation by direct questions, and, when they give roundabout answers to challenge them, that they haven't answered the question, but have just fed us a line of propaganda in order to get free publicity for their cause or agenda. Hold them accountable and we need fact-checkers to be watchdogs and given the opportunity to do their job.

People often believe statements merely because they are publicized or in print and accept them as gospel truth. They are gullible and lend credence to such impossible ideas as conspiracy theories, which are only a figment of the imagination and have no basis in fact. Another suggestion is to listen to both sides before making a rash decision about who's right or wrong--don't jump to the conclusion because of partiality! When someone makes a statement in the media, it should be clarified that this is only his opinion and not factual per se; he could be wrong! There is quite a leap of faith going from opinion to fact and some people make no such distinction.

We can know things from circumstantial evidence, such as the resurrection of Christ, which also has eyewitness testimony and historical documentation, and this kind of evidence is acceptable in a court of law and is valid. A court case can be proved based on it alone.

My plea to journalists is to keep contributors and guests restricted to making statements that they can back up with factual evidence and stick to their area of expertise or training. A chief propaganda methodology is to tell really big lies and keep telling them till the public at large learns to accept it. A better technique to keep lies at bay is to ask them where they gathered their information--we don't want hearsay, gossip, disinformation, or even misinformation (even if misconstrued) to be disseminated, or should I say perpetrated? False allegations should be given the opportunity to be refuted in an equitable manner--the public has a right to hear both sides of an issue.

Asking direct questions deserve a direct answer and sometimes in the affirmative or negative. Sometimes guest outbursts call for ground rules and laying down the law. Many times conflict can be resolved by defining terms; this implies there's a problem of semantics. Kudos to all investigative reporters who don't take everything they hear at face value, but in skepticism until there is evidence to back it up--this art should not stop with the correspondent but continue in all levels of journalism.

Journalism 101 should teach journalists to do their homework, work in their field of training so they know their subject, go for substance, not appearance or delivery, not to leave questions up in the air without settling the issue or giving both sides an opportunity, not to be so image-conscious, be as skeptical and hard to convince as possible, driving them to give a straight up and down, yes or no answer when given a direct question without any avoiding the issue or changing the subject to get their propaganda some air time, they need to be informed enough to be able to ask spontaneous questions and follow what they say to lead the interview with these questions--not trying to trip them up, but being fair, so that they are not so dependent on the producers preparing questions beforehand to ask that they clueless about--it shows!

These are only common-sense ground rules that any adept journalist should have the instinct to follow. What has happened due to the race for ratings is a void filled by the lowest common denominator. It seems like they are too afraid to be labeled biased or of taking sides and don't realize that no one is completely objective; they have the right to be human! NB:  Journalists ought to beware of the "Red Herring" technique properly called by better names: the pivot, argument by irrelevance, argument by changing the subject, or even by the talking point.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Knowledge Power?

"I know from experience what a passion for God they have, but alas, it is not a passion based on knowledge"  (cf. Rom. 10:2, J. B. Philipps).   
"...I do not want you to be uninformed"  (1 Cor. 12:1, ESV). 
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, to him it is sin"  (James 4:17, ESV). 
"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge"  (Prov. 12:1, NASB). 
FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED! 


Sir Francis Bacon, who formulated the scientific or empirical method, said that "knowledge is power"; which he got from Prov. 24:5, NASB, which says, "A man of knowledge increases power."  Some think that its a virtue to be ignorant and that ignorance is bliss, so to speak; however, God condemns the neglect of knowledge as culpable and will hold us accountable for what we could've known and should've known better for.  Paul says in 1 Cor. 8:1 that "knowledge puffs up, but love edifies," and I'm sure he's talking about worldly knowledge, not knowledge of the Lord, which is about the Lord of love.  We are never to get arrogant and think we're smart as Paul says in Romans 12 but to think of others as more important than ourselves.



Knowledge is not the measure of a man and has no inherent virtue unless properly applied and shared.  The knowledge in the body as a gift isn't meant to be for the sake of the recipient, but also for the benefit of the body at large.  A wise man stores up knowledge, Proverbs says.  You never know when you might need some info and when something might come in handy--a useful education is a wise investment of our resources and God may give us the opportunity to use it to His glory.  Note that scripture wasn't written to increase knowledge (trivia, facts and figures, info about it), but to change lives! 


We live in the age of anti-knowledge, where truth is relative, and tech-savvy people who think they can ignore the rules and conventions of centuries of input and research to gain skill in rightly handling knowledge.  The president himself seems to be rejecting knowledge, wisdom, and even understanding, as he nominates cabinet members who seem to me to be unqualified, except ideologically.  You don't want to surround yourself with a bunch of yes-men and sycophants in the situation room at zero hours.  We are close enough to nuclear midnight as it is, to be taking chances on the inexperienced and those who even despise and mock experience.  To be ignorant of your ignorance is the epitome of foolhardiness.  To begin learning, said Socrates, you must admit your ignorance!  



The correct use of knowledge is called wisdom.  It's also knowledge put into action!   Don't let your bro stumble because of your "knowledge."  We, who are strong, ought to bear with the weaker bro and not to allow him to fall because he is less enlightened and doesn't quite see the light of day.  Some people do have wisdom beyond their years, while others are retarded and have never grown up.  The weaker bro needs to grow in knowledge, and the wise guy needs to grow in love.  Don't allow your so-called knowledge become an occasion of stumbling.  


I actually believe that the president doesn't realize the inaccurate statements he's made, and what damage control he's had to do unnecessarily--often the problem is in delivery or communication ability and public relations control.  In my humble opinion, and I don't normally play the psychobabble card, but he seems a little off, unbalanced, or out of touch with reality to me and that he actually believes these gross distortions of the truth, like the idea that 3 to 5 million "illegals" voted for HRC to defeat him in the popular vote. [Note:  no humans are illegal!]  The fact is that he should be cognizant of, is that he doesn't have a mandate to reform America, and America is highly divided on account of him; despite a brief honeymoon, he's managed to stir debate, protest, and partisan schisms.


Are we entering a new age of protests a la the 60s?  Is this the new norm?  Are we going to have the ignorant tyrannize us for the entire administration?  He does tend to use strong-arm and scare tactics like a godfather or thug in the underground.  The fact is that his base lives in an alternate universe of denial of the facts and they are completely taken in by a colossal propaganda program and don't even know it--I witnessed this personally myself watching interviews of people who are Trump supporters and they were asked how things were going for them!


Gnosticism is heresy:  we aren't saved by being enlightened with secret knowledge only accessible to an inner circle or a crowd of fortune seekers.  God's gospel is straightforward, simple, clear, and not ambiguous or obtuse; however, we aren't saved by knowledge per se--Christ didn't teach anything in secret to be later revealed by those "in the know."  There is no scoop or skinny to be disseminated to secret disciples!  We don't need to "discover" the truth; on the other hand, he opens our eyes to the truth that sets us free (cf. John 8:32).  


A word to the wise is sufficient:  "The lips of the wise spread knowledge..." (Prov. 15:7, NASB).  Only true ignorance, where one couldn't possibly have known, is an excuse; however, no one can claim insufficient evidence to believe in God--all are found guilty as charged!  Caveat:  "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction"  (Prov. 1:7, NASB).  Though never an end in itself, we begin with God as the foundation of all knowledge.  Soli Deo Gloria! 

The Rise Of Scientism

Scientism is defined as the act of harnessing science for unscientific endeavors or academic disciplines. It's when one thinks the only reliable truth is from science.

Some secularist scientists believe all our problems can be scientifically resolved and that science has the answers to our dilemmas if given enough time. Excuse me: Science does not have all the answers! Scientism, by definition, is when you make statements that science has no right to make, or are out of its domain or sphere of knowledge. One notable example is humanist astronomer Carl Sagan saying that "the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be!" This is a metaphysical statement that scientists have no authority to answer.

History, by its very nature, is nonrepeatable, and no one was there at creation or the Big Bang so we have no eyewitnesses to verify the evidence. It's speculation, not science--history is not science, because you need to be able to control variables and have laboratory conditions, as well as repeatability and measurability.

Science is not a source of ethical, metaphysical, or philosophical truth. This is why evolution is out of its realm of knowledge--no one saw life begin and all attempts at creating life in the lab have failed. There is no final conflict between science and the Bible, in fact, it was Christianity that made science possible by promoting an orderly and law-abiding cosmos. The first scientists, such as Sir Francis Bacon, were Christians, and you don't have to deny your faith to be a good scientist--the majority of astronomers today are not atheists at all. Galileo and Copernicus were Christians and they were among the earliest of scientists.

Eastern religions never would've given birth to science, since they believe reality is an illusion called Maya. Christians affirm a Lawgiver, orderly and predictable laws and consequences for violation. Christians believe all truth is God's truth, and that includes scientific truth, and that it all meets at the top as Aquinas said. The Bible has never been proven to be in scientific error, and the scientific statements it does make are accurate: for instance, the water cycle was described long before we figured it out.

Scientism is when scientists hijack their views in the name of science to make philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical claims that it doesn't have any right to make. Several Nobel scientists have written a book called Cosmos, Bios & Theos, and have agreed that God is necessary to explain the complexities behind creation; we are not some fluke of nature!

To show the vanity of putting faith in science, the French Academy of Science published a brochure listing fifty-one "scientific facts" that controverted the Bible--today none of the so-called facts are believed! The Bible doesn't need correction, just faith in its self-attestation--if it appealed to some outside source for authority and legitimacy, then it couldn't be the Word of God, as it needed a higher authority for verification. What we say is that you don't have to defend a caged lion, it will take care of itself--and so the Bible can prove itself, it just needs to be read or reread. When they ask you to prove it, you tell them, "No way! You prove it, just try reading it--it will prove itself!"

In sum, all science can do is discover the know-how and learn by the scientific method, whereas to find the know-why you need religion or philosophy--don't confuse the two domains! It is a sad commentary on our society that science has become a religion. Faith in science is still faith, and is no different than putting faith in God or religion--you just have different presuppositions as your starting point and all knowledge begins in faith. Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is Earth Made Of?...

I'm not a scientist, and I certainly don't espouse "scientism," or the belief that science is the only valid source of knowledge, but I do believe that science can find facts, just like the Bible has scientific facts in it without having any scientific absurdities or known mistakes--where the Bible does make scientific statements, it's accurate; though it's not a science manual (though there are several instances where the Bible's knowledge is more advanced than that of current science).  We must make use of all sources of knowledge:  rationality, empiricism, experience, logic, history, philosophy, and revelation from God.  Ultimately, all information is contingent upon its presupposition, and all knowledge depends ultimately upon God, the source.  As Augustine said, "All truth is God's truth."  All truth meets at the top, he would say!  That's why the Bible has the roots of every major academic discipline and has something to say to initiate the study of each one from philosophy, science, logic, ethics, history, economics, theology, psychology, sociology, and even politics.  All these academic endeavors have their fulfillment in the person of Christ.

Science can demonstrate that energy and matter exist, but when they allege that this is all there is, they are presumptuous (you cannot prove a universal negative), such as Carl Sagan saying, "The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."  That is a philosophical or theological statement not in the prerogative or domain of science to make.  For instance, when science says that miracles are a violation of natural law, they are saying natural law is God or has His power and that there is no Almighty who is the Lawgiver and is not bound by natural law but can overrule it at will.  And so the question of miracles is really a philosophical and theological one, not a scientific one.

In addition to energy/matter/quanta in the time-space continuum (time being the corollary of space and matter), we see information, design, order, and plans in our cosmos from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest galaxy.  Christians adhere to spirit.  New Agers believe in energy in everything, in fact, everything having a spirit and the existence of a Great Spark of life.  How can one not see the Anthropic Principle on earth, with its many contingent laws and nature's conveniences and not see God's handiwork?  "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork!" (Psa. 19:1, ESV).  Napoleon was asked why he believed:  all you have to do is look to the heavens--"Who made that?"   "The theory of an eternal universe is untenable!" Scientists assume the big bang and "a brief history of time" itself--which the Bible verifies (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2).  Steven Hawking wrote A Brief History of Time postulating this hypothesis.

Logic will tell you that if there's creation, there must be a Creator.  If there was a beginning or Big Bang, then there had to be a Beginner or One who got the big bang going.  The Big Bang was so fine-tuned that even slight maladjustments would've made the anthropic principle impossible.  One can also reason that there is a plan because of a Planner, a design because of a Designer, order because of an Orderer, and a purpose because of a "Purposer." Just like you assume an artist looking at art and an architect looking at a building ("For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything," cf. Heb. 3:4, NIV).  Now, think of all the information out there!  Carl Sagan said that he'd believe in intelligence if we would get a message of information from outer space.  Well, there's plenty of intelligence on earth to look at to assume a Great Intelligence: every living thing as DNA or the fingerprint of God and is encoded with information, showing "intelligent design" or ID (the human genome has as much info as an entire set of encyclopedias).

Now, the ultimate dilemma or issue:  we have information, which necessitates thought, which necessitates a thinker!  A mind assumes a Higher Mind (the Logos of Scripture) and scientists don't dare go there because they want to deny His existence.  The logical order of events is this:   Thinker, thought, and then, finally, object or thing comprising forethought, design, or plan.   One of Einstein's earlier statements was that God was a "pure mathematical mind." To some astronomers, the universe appears as one gigantic mathematical equation!   Whether one believes in a personal God or not, there had to be a First Cause, Prime Mover, or Causa Prima, of Aristotle, and logic tells us that eternal regression and crossing infinity are impossible: everything cannot be contingent, but there must be something that needs no one or nothing and is not contingent for the chain of events to begin!  We say this because, according to logic, nothing can create or cause itself, and nothing just happens or appears without a cause.  One rule says that everything that begins to exist has a cause--God had no beginning and no cause and the universe began to exist and had a cause!

In sum, we must start with God and explain the universe, not the other way around!  "In the beginning God..." and "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  We must start somewhere with the missing ingredient of information and its Creator, or Thinker--the Ultimate Mind!  Point to ponder:  "The only system of thought that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point."  (Athanasius).   Soli Deo Gloria!

As A Matter Of Fact

'The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him--a Spirit of wisdom and understanding, a Spirit of counsel and strength, a Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD" (Isaiah 11:2, HCSB).  

DEFINITIONS FROM DAVID A. NOEBEL:  KNOWLEDGE IS JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF.  FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLY KNOWN TO BE TRUE OR THINGS KNOWN TO EXIST IN REALITY, DEPICTING AND CONFORMING TO IT.    PRAGMATISM IS THE BELIEF THAT PROPOSTIONS DO NOT MIRROR REALITY AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE TREATED AS TOOLS AND JUDGED ONLY BY THEIR PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES [IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S TRUE, BUT ONLY RESULTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED].  TRUTH, ACCORDING TO THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH IS THAT WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH REALITY.  

NB:  CARL SAGAN SAYS EVOLUTION "IS FACT, NOT THEORY."  HE UNDERSTANDS NEITHER FACTS, SCIENCE, NOR THEORY.  EVOLUTION IS UNPROVEN AND UNPROVABLE!  ANY EVIDENCE IS HARD TO COME BY AND THERE IS ZERO FOSSIL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE THEORY OF MACRO-EVOLUTION--NO AUTHENTIC MISSING LINKS OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS, WHICH WAS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS, CHAMPIONED AS THEORY, AND NOW TOUTED AS FACT!  SCIENCE DEPENDS UPON EXPERIMENTS, MEASUREMENT, REPEATABILITY, AND OBSERVATION--NOTE THAT NO ONE WAS THERE!  

ONE-TIME EVENTS IN HISTORY ARE NONREPEATABLE AND NOT WITHIN THE REALM OF SCIENTIFIC SPECULATION.  IT IS VITAL TO KNOW THAT CHRISTIANITY DEALS IN FACTS AND EVIDENCE, AND IF IT'S DEHISTORICIZED IT'S FULLY DISCREDITED AND NOTHING BUT NOBLE ETHICS AND "PIE-IN-THE-SKY" DREAMS.  

Knowing all the trivia in the world will do you no good morally, spiritually, or practically--by definition trivia is useless info.  The only time it comes in handy is as a parlor game or on a game show as a contestant, or in the audience watching it for diversion or past-time or just to have fun things to know.  People who remember trivia tend to be disorganized for the most part because they don't organize what's useful for life; others just remember everything and know it fortuitously.  The point is that knowledge in itself is not an end in itself, it must be applied and put to work to be any benefit. Just like there's pure science and applied science.   If a trivia nut keeps telling you his "facts" facetiously tell him: "You don't say?" "Is that a fact?" 

The only knowledge that matters is that which can accomplish God's will and can be put to use productively; it is no wonder that knowledge is increasing exponentially, but our wisdom or knowing how to use it is falling proportionately--we're getting worse off! (Daniel 12:4, NIV, says, "... Many will go here and there to increase knowledge [or "and knowledge shall be increased" in KJV] .")   Knowledge need not be 100 percent certain to be called knowledge. 

Knowledge must affect your life to be of value!  We must put our knowledge to work for us.  The whole purpose of knowledge is edification, enlightenment, and inspiration or motivation for good deeds. The trouble is that we all possess trivia and even genuine, useful knowledge and don't know how to make it useful--we aren't faithful to what we do know as a rule; however, if we pass on what God has shown us He will give more light.

This can be seen also in those that study for purely academic reasons or as literature, reading the storyline and seeing the Bible as a lesson to learn much like fairy tales or myths.  Anybody can read about David and Goliath and conclude that you shouldn't let bullies boss you around or be discouraged by them--it doesn't take a spiritual mind at all!  And so, included in a trivial pursuit of Bible knowledge is to focus on the mundane and things of secular interest, such as historical facts and references.

Knowledge in itself puffs up according to 1  Cor. 8:1 and the goal should be to express it and make a loving use of it--love is the fulfillment of the law!  Gal. 5:6 says that "the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" in the NIV.  The problem with knowledge is basically that some use it to impress others and to get proud of it for its own sake.  We all must beware of information glut whereby we know too much for our own good--not being able to apply it--and our knowledge gets ahead of us because we lose orientation and focus on our marching orders and the Great Commission; we must keep the main thing the main thing and not major on minors!

One problem in the church is the "nod-to-God crowd" doing their "duty."  They go to church in a perfunctory manner as a routine or to fulfill social obligations or to keep the conscience clean, not to apply what they hear as cheerful hearers but not cheerful doers of the Word.  These people tend to just go through the motions and have memorized the dance of the pious, knowing all the lingo of the church and are really socially engaged, as if churchgoing were a social event.  These believers are really lukewarm and need to invite Christ into their hearts so that they have more than head knowledge.  Christ must dwell in the heart to save and this is expressed in love to God and others, even enemies.  They may even apply the message to others being blind of their own depravity and spiritual need.

Now, don't mistake the hunger for the Word or the seeking of the Truth as abnormally vain or useless.  The healthy, growing believer has a genuine love for the Truth (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10) and loves the Word of God, and he will lose this passion if he doesn't apply what he knows--this is why we must pace our intake and not overload or get intoxicated with the Word only to forget it without application.  The Bible may become passe or one can get Bible fatigue as it loses its zing or pizazz, but walking close to the Lord will keep one close to the Word as it makes you hungry for more as it feeds you.  And being callous or indifferent to spiritual matters is a warning sign and the only cure is to own up to what you know and get back to the basics of love in action.

Some believers are just too distracted by the cares of this world or have too shallow of a mind to think divine meditations.  One must heed the words of Jesus in John 13:17 where He said, "Now that you know these things, blessed are you if you do them."  The Pharisees knew the Scriptures in their head but failed to understand their spiritual meaning ("You know not the Scriptures neither the power of God," in Matt. 22:29).  What they were experts at is applying it to others!  We must apply ourselves to the Word and the Word to ourselves (cf. Job 5:37).  Never discount knowledge, wisdom, and understanding as gifts of God, but to whom much is given, much is required (cf. Luke 12:48).

"For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge" (2 Pet. 1:5, NIV).

Faith comes via the spiritual miracle and gift of preaching!  We must go a step further: turn our creeds into deeds and practice what we preach.  Christianity is not just a creed to believe but knowing a person and putting that creed into action!  Everyone needs to be convicted of sin and inspired to godly endeavor in the body, not just the immature ones!  We have never "graduated" in church when we don't need other members of the body, especially teaching and preaching.  Disciples are "learners" by definition and have enrolled in the school of Christ for the long haul.

We must never become complacent and think we know it all and have no need of preaching.  Some have been called to teach, prophesy, and preach, while others to submit to their God-given authority in so doing.  Those who don't get convicted or inspired are in danger of being out of touch spiritually, and if they don't apply it, they can lose it, even backslide or fall temporarily into apostasy.  There are no Lone Ranger believers who can say they can worship God in the cornfield or on the mass media or even social media because there are no spiritual hermits or loners in the body.

Knowledge is not meant to be an intellectual thing where smart or intelligent people have the advantage--the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart.  A point in fact:  Nobody can absorb it all, everyone must be selective--you cannot be effective without being selective.  Some people try to do too much or learn too much--books can become burdensome if one doesn't learn to organize his studies and realize what God wants for him to know and apply--he must know how God uses him.  That's where knowing our place in the body and our spiritual gift comes into play so that we don't attempt too much and accomplish nothing.

Knowledge is vital, but it's not everything!  God's "people perish for lack of knowledge" (cf. Hos. 4:1, 6,14).   We must never lose our focus and perspective or discernment.  We cannot escape knowledge because that is not an option for the believer, it leads to spiritual suicide!  How can Protestants dissent, disagree and protest if they are ignorant?  The Bible tells us that the righteous are hungry for the truth, but the fool feeds on trash in Prov. 15:14, and we have all heard the computer slogan garbage in, garbage out.  And so knowledge is the byproduct of a walk with Christ:  "... [B]earing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God," in Col. 1:10; "But grow in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..." in 2 Pet. 3:18, NIV.

The only test of genuine knowledge in action or faith is obedience to the Word.  NB: Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Only he who believes is obedient; only he who is obedient believes."  Obedience is the only measure of faith and the second part of the Great Commission, to teach them to obey all that Christ taught--i.e., being disciples or students of the Word ("Study to shew thyself approved unto God...," in 2 Tim. 2:15, KJV or "be diligent to present yourself ..." in NKJV).

And we must have pure motives for attaining knowledge (we must not stop there and fail to complete our mission)--it's the means to the end, not an end in itself, and not just to have all the answers or to outsmart and pull rank on the preacher or prof either in order to boost our own ego. Two major issues of growth stunting in the church are apathy and ignorance--they don't know, and much worse, they don't care!  To begin learning we must admit our ignorance according to Socrates.

In sum, there's a vast difference between knowing about the Bible and knowing the Bible, which can only be done if one knows the Author when God is our teacher, whereby we grow in the grace and true knowledge of the Lord, which is a humbling experience.

Words to the wise shall be sufficient:  In Scripture, Moses, Dr. Luke, and Paul were men of great learning.  Just like the British scientist (who founded the scientific method) and philosopher, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with the 1597 maxim, "Knowledge is power," there is the skilled use of it--that's where wisdom comes in:  Scripture says, "The wise prevail through great power, and those who have knowledge muster their strength [i.e., increase their strength]" (Prov. 24:5, NIV).  Knowledge is necessary for spiritual growth, but not sufficient--IT'S ONLY PART OF THE EQUATION; it must be lived out in love. We don't believe in knowledge for its own sake! 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing because some know enough to be dangerous!  NB:  Knowledge per se is no measure of spiritual status or growth, it must be commensurate with love in action.  

CAVEAT:  WE MUST BEWARE OF HAVING A ZEAL FOR GOD, BUT NOT ACCORDING TO KNOWLEDGE AS PAUL WARNED IN ROM. 10:2 AND SOLOMON IN PROV. 19:2.   By all means:  "The beginning of wisdom [the right use of knowledge] is this: Get wisdom.  Though it cost you all you have, get understanding" (Prov. 4:7, NIV).    Soli Deo Gloria!

Extreme Epistemology

According to the correspondence theory of truth (espoused by John Locke), truth is what relates to reality.

How do you know anything for certain?  The Eastern faiths and worldviews see all reality as Maya or illusion, i.e., reality cannot be perceived, and science and the scientific method never could have been developed under such a self-defeating system of knowledge, because we need an ordered, a consistent, and knowable universe that can be studied and made sense of.  Descartes reasoned that he could know he existed:  "I think, therefore I am."  Augustine had said, "If I err, I am." Actually, if you think there must be a thinker to make though, so you can't use thought to disprove your existence.  We need valid reasoning to prove our reasoning is valid:  Jesus is the Logos or reason and logic behind everything.

Only God is capable of giving sound reason, for man's knowledge, by definition, is fallible and error-prone. Even science changes its truth claims--it's a moving train of knowledge (the world is no longer flat!): In 1861 the French Academy of Science listed fifty-one so-called scientific facts that controverted the Bible! Today none of these "facts" are believed.  It is a principle of science and philosophy that to arrive at the truth you must admit you could be wrong--science today is biased!

It is self-defeating to say you cannot know anything (how can one ascertain that?) because then you are rejecting knowledge and knowledge begins with knowing God according to Proverbs 1:7  "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise instruction and learning." You don't know diddly squat without starting with God and Him as the reference point, without making yourself judge, jury, and ultimately God Himself.  If you say:  "I know I know nothing for certain," you have contradicted yourself, and this statement has no truth claim whatsoever.  How can you know for certain that you can know nothing for certain?

The unbeliever ultimately has to admit that he could be wrong, and his worldview comes tumbling down.  It is said that we can only know something from sources:  Reasoning ability and revelation from God.  Deuteronomy 29:29 (ESV) says that God has revealed the truth to us in the Bible and He still has secrets we cannot know:  "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

How does one account for knowledge and truth without God?  We don't try to reason to God but from God as the starting point, not finishing point.  Don't insult God by putting Him on trial by catering to the person's demand for evidence--we don't have to prove our God because God has made Himself known and this is evident--they are all without excuse.  Just how can you make sense of anything without God? Children's inquiries cannot be satisfied without bringing Him up, and you practically have to indoctrinate or brainwash them not to believe. You cannot prove A without it being true, known, and logical.  These three (truth, knowledge, and logic) assume and only make sense with God!  "...[A]s the truth is in Jesus" (cf. Eph. 4:20).

Everything we know is based on presupposition and faith because to know anything you must know everything.  Both the believer and the unbeliever have faith and is it evident unbelief takes more faith, due to the evidence.  God is not going to force one to believe, He desires faith to please Him. To know A you must know B, and to know B you must know C, and so forth ad infinitum.  All our knowledge is contingent then. This is called infinite regress and only God knows where it ends because He is omniscient.  The only way we can know anything is if it is revealed to us, and this is the Christian worldview--Jesus is the incarnation and personification or embodiment of truth and came to bear witness of the truth, as he answered Pilate who asked, "What is truth?"  People interpret their reality and information according to their worldview and presuppositions.

It is no use giving evidence to a person that doesn't want to believe because this makes him the judge of God. One gives evidence to a jury in a courtroom.  How can one make truth claims when denying the source of truth (Jesus, cf. Eph. 4:20).  "I don't know anything!" I can say: "How do you know this?  Are you certain?"  "Yes, I am certain I cannot be certain!" This kind of nonsense is what atheism leads to.   Don't assume the unbeliever knows anything because without God he can't.  But he does know something, and this is proof he knows or knew God. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Fools are those who deny God and know better.

All of creation speaks of God:  They believe a lottery winner winning too often is the result of it being rigged, but the sunset isn't rigged.  The whole creation is rigged and couldn't exist without God. "In Him, we live and move and have our being."  They suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but how can they do this if they don't know the truth?  If you look in the mirror you are seeing a miracle!  Life is no fluke, it is rigged and couldn't have happened without God's intervention and creation.

Who is to say God can't use circular reasoning, because He is self-attesting or self-authenticating, and to appeal to some other authority would be to lose His ultimate authority.  You might say: "I use my reason to believe reasoning is the best way to arrive at knowledge because it sounds reasonable--that is circular.   But God is the Author of logic and we cannot "out-logic" or out-reason Him.  God, not Aristotle formulated the rules of logic.

People beg the question when they claim they know something apart from God:  I know I exist because of my own consciousness!    The fact remains, we can know something for certain:  All that God has revealed to us according to Deut. 29:29 "...[That] which is revealed belongs to us...." People use science to disprove Christianity when science depends on the Christian worldview.   When people reject God, they are making themselves God and setting up an outside moral authority above the Bible in their own reasoning.  If there was no intelligence behind the cosmos and consequently our brains were not designed for thought but are only the byproduct of atomic reactions how can we trust our own thinking?  C. S. Lewis said, "...[How] can I trust my own thinking to be true?  But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else.  Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Jesus came to bear witness of it and he who is of the truth hears His voice.  "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.  This is the true God and eternal life"  (1 John 5:20, NASB).  Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Morality Relevant?

I realized the importance of morality when a Christian friend of mine was engaging in road rage. He was going to give them a taste of their own medicine, so to speak. Morality is our duty to God, to others and to our self. We all have a conscience and a system or code of conduct--even prisoners have a prison code (don't steal my smokes)! Some believe that we should do to others before they do to you (the Iron Rule), or do to others as they do to you, or before they do unto you!  (Babylonian morals is tit for tat or the Brazen Rule ( or the desire to take vengeance or to get even--which belongs to God;, or not to do to others what you don't want to be done to you (the Silver Rule).

Most people will rub your back if you rub theirs--but what reward does that deserve?   However, Christ made the highest standard: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" the Golden Rule).  What goes around comes around, we reap what we sow. The Hindus call it good and bad karma. We have rights but also responsibilities to our fellow man. The basis of this is that we are created in the image of God (imago Dei).

Some philosophies like cosmic-humanism believe there is no absolute morality and everyone is moral. "All are moral because we do what feels right for us." Postmodernists believe morality doesn't exist and is only a byproduct of coercion and consensus, like everyone agreeing that broccoli tastes good. Secular humanism teaches that morality is relative. Marxism teaches utilitarianism, that the end justifies the means. Pragmatism, which is in vogue today teaches that if it works it must be Good. Islam teaches that Mohammad is the exemplar. Christ not only taught the highest standards but also gave the highest motive to achieve them. Confucius summed up morality with one word--reciprocity. J. Stephen Lang cites Rabbi Hillel being asked to sum up the law: "Whatever displeases you, do not do to others, this is the whole law." (The Silver Rule).  Nevertheless, morality is nebulous and we need divine revelation, otherwise, it is a fool's errand of speculation.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Worldview And Ethics...

There is a close correlation between your worldview and your ethics. For instance, if you don't believe in God you won't see anything wrong with free love. If you believe in jihad and Islam you will see nothing wrong with suicide bombings and terrorism. Goethe said, "Share with me your certainties, but not your doubts--I have enough of them myself." Worldview came from the German Weltanschauung.  It is important to realize we are in the image of God:  "Would you trust the convictions of a monkey's mind?" Darwin mused.

According to polls, it is reported that only some six percent Christian teens believe in moral absolutes and most non-Christian teens don't either! We all have a way of seeing the big picture or the grand scheme of things and must answer the basic questions such as: Why are we here; What is the purpose of life; and is there a hereafter (what is on the other side)? No one wants to compromise their beliefs, but there is a give and take to living in society. Science cannot make value judgments--they are out of their realm. The people that have the strongest convictions of right and wrong are those that have an anchor in their soul--such as the Word of God.

We all have to start from somewhere and thank God we all don't have to start from scratch. There is no such thing as total objectivity except with God. And we all take certain presuppositions into our equation. Leaving God out of the picture or out of the equation of life is a disaster, not liberty. We were meant for God and the highest purpose of man is to know and glorify God. (Cf. Isaiah 43:7). Soli Deo Gloria!

Origins Of Morality

If there was no morality or justice, we would not know it. Likewise, if there was no meaning to the universe, we would not know it. Does a fish know it is wet? Do animals know they are incapable of moral decisions because they don't have the equipment in that they don't have a will able to obey God? They are oblivious to Him.  Because we have a mind and a will we are capable of moral action. Animals are not responsible nor culpable. 

Many have heard of the saying, "There oughta be a law!" (or on sports, "There oughta be a rule!)  Well, it is to this sense of "ought" that I am addressing here. Everyone believes some things are wrong and some things are right. Have you ever heard of a society that honored cowardice or selfishness?

It was the principles of morality that were attractive to some pagans as they converted to Judaism. The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle were embarrassed with the immorality of the "gods," e.g., Mars and Venus had sexual intercourse with mortal women. The morality of Judaism attracted many Greek God-seekers or God-fearers. In antiquity might made right and no one questioned the authority of the government to set standards. It was the Judeo-Christian ethic that brought the values we have today. Christians ended the gladiator fights and slavery. It would be another world had Jesus never been born. All the major Universities of Europe and the first 150 American Universities were started by Christians. Hospitals, relief organizations,  orphanages, charities, and humane societies and temperance leagues were influenced by Christians.

Before the Ten Commandments, there was the Hammurabi's Code, but there was no uniform code. People were generally ruled by whim and conscience. The law of the land was an eye for an eye. Jesus put an end to that and brought morality to a new level--loving our neighbor. The Dark Ages saw the "seven deadly sins" (lust, anger, jealousy, greed, envy, gluttony, and sloth) as the evil to avoid according to the Pope. Christian life was performance-based then before the Reformation.

The Golden Rule that Christ taught is the epitome of morality that we can only hope to emulate. Today most people are cynical and believe in "do unto others as they do unto you," (Brazen Rule) or "do unto others before they do unto you" (Iron Rule).  They think recompense and comeuppance. It is like Hindu philosophy that good and bad karma works out our fates or good karma cancels bad.

Of course, there is an element of truth in all religious systems. Islam believes morality is arbitrary because Allah's decrees can change. Without an absolute standard such as God's holiness, there can be no morality. The Christian God is not arbitrary, capricious, nor whimsical, but dependable and immutable. But we know intrinsically that morality exists as absolute standards (is there ever an instance where rape is moral; once could argue when one had no choice, but this isn't justification, just a moral dilemma)?) Justice, love, courage, and mercy have always been admired; while cowardice, lying, and stealing have always been despised. God gave everyone a conscience and we are responsible to Him. "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness..." (Rom. 2:15).

Today some modern philosophies teach to do what feels right for you. This is nothing but the old apostasy of Israel in Judges 21:25; 17:16 which is described: "Each man did what was right in his own eyes."

The reason behind morality is responsibility. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27). We are not free to make up our own rules as we go along--we always make up a system we think we have kept (acc. to D. James Kennedy). Animals are not responsible to God for moral behavior but we are in the imago Dei (image of God).

When we become the source of our values it is nothing short of blasphemy--it is God's prerogative as the Judge of all mankind. The summation of ethics is to follow Christ, the great mandate of salvation. Today they teach the children they are animals--is it any wonder they act like them?  Soli Deo Gloria!

Ethics With A Capital "E"

I realized the way our qualms or principles evoke reactions in others watching Gunsmoke. A common criminal who had stolen golden relics from a church went into a bar and when the prostitute saw them he said, "Don't you have any principles?" He retorted, "I have as many as you!" Next, he held up the bartender but noticed he was wearing a crucifix. He couldn't do it, but said, "You don't know how close you came to being killed." He later became a Christian.

Julian Huxley's Religion Without Revelation reveals how you can be moral and not believe in God. The New Morality or situation ethics justify wrongdoing but the Bible's teachings are immutable and rock-solid. We are to imitate that which is good and not evil. Without God morality is just consensus and if there is no judge or judgment day why not eat, drink, [and be merry] for tomorrow we die" like the Bible says? If you just want to be a nice guy or an ethical person, any [ethnic] religion will do, but this is for the seeker of God. For instance, Buddhism is so popular because you can be good without God. (Buddha was an atheist.)

What about the unlearned, unsophisticated person--does he/she have any discernment? We all have the ability to make value judgments by the moral compass God has given us. Like Jiminy Cricket said, "Always let your conscience be your guide." Martin Luther said it is neither right nor safe to go against conscience. But the conscience can be wrong if it isn't enlightened by the Word of God. Alexander and Hymenaeus ignored and rejected their conscience and thus made shipwreck of their faith: A word to the wise is sufficient.

Do not be confused that the Christian life is a philosophy or a code of conduct or system of ethics; one can lead a very moral life and still not be saved. Being a Christian is knowing Jesus personally and having a relationship with Him.

Why do universities that believe in relative morality (What's right for me) even teach ethics? Because it's good for business. Orthopraxy is the name for putting into practice what you believe and how correct it is, just like orthodoxy is right believing, orthopraxy is right doing. Everyone has a code of conduct, their own conscience, so to speak; even criminals have a prison code! But what I'm concerned with is the Christian perspective; that of perfection, which no one can satisfy. ("Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.").  Perfection is the standard, the direction is the test.

Christians believe morality stems from God's immutable character and are therefore immutable and not arbitrary or changeable. James is the book dedicated to ethics because it's theme is the faith you have is the faith you show. "I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). God has redeemed "a people zealous unto good works," (cf. Titus 2:14).  The admonition to follow Christ is the decision every Christian has made and Paul has some insight when he says "Abstain from every form of evil." "By their fruit, you shall know them."

Nowadays people think ethics are relative (I believe in absolute moral values) and we can make up our own rules as we go along. I believe in absolute morality because it is the only system of ethics compatible with faith in a righteous and moral God. The statement, "All truth is relative" is itself relative and of no value and is a truth statement.   Have you heard of the professor who introduced his class by saying, "You can know nothing for certain." One student replies: "Professor, are you sure?" He answers, "I AM sure."

I have heard it said that the summation of Christian ethics is to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21). Jesus made famous the Golden Rule: "Treat unto others the way you would have them treat unto you." This is an impossibly high ethic that no one has completed to perfection.  "The Christian life is not hard, it's impossible"--only Christ has fulfilled it.

But the idea wasn't unique. The Jews had heard of the great Rabbi Hillel who said that you must not do anything to others you wouldn't want to be done in return--that this summed up the Law. Confucius was asked to sum up his teachings with one word and he did: "Reciprocity." Buddha's rule was called the Silver Rule because it was slightly easier and it was in the negative: "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you." The Golden Rule was also in the Old Testament. In Obadiah, it says, "As you have done, so shall it be done to you." It's the highest ethic.  This is the reverse of said rule. Solomon also had a word of wisdom that will suffice: "Do not withhold good to others when it is within your power."  Solomon also said we should return evil for evil:  "Don't say, 'I'll do to him what he did to me; I'll repay the man for what he has done.'" (Prov. 24:29). Americans mostly live by the Brazen Rule:  "I'll do to him as he has done to me."

Finally, the famous physician Hippocrates said in his famous oath, "First, do no harm." Unfortunately, some people go by the Iron Rule:  "I'll do to them before they do unto me, or might makes right."   We want to go the extra mile and do some good, not just avoid evil. Faith is a verb that does good deeds. We are not saved by our good deeds, but we are not saved without them either--we are saved unto good works (cf. Eph. 2:10).

To sum up, Micah 6:8 is a good Old Testament paradigm of ethics: "He has told you, O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (When my pastor asked me my philosophy in a verse, that was the one. The definition of the Christian life from Paul could very well be this: "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, and yet not I, but Christ who lives in me, and the life that I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). Thus the hallmark of the Christian is love as Jesus said to the disciples: "By this shall men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.  Soli Deo Gloria!