You Could Be Wrong!

People are fully committed to what they believe, especially their political camp, and would not accept the argument that they could be wrong. But God is not partisan! You cannot know the absolute truth in a partisan manner!  This goes for anything secular in arguing:  the opponent could be wrong and that is a valid point.  They don't want to admit they are dogmatic in their faith.  Do you know that logically all religions cannot be right; however, they could all be wrong!  We have faith in God, However, and this is the beginning of knowledge. We know the answers to the ultimate questions!  Because our knowledge originates with God who He knows all.  You have to know all to know anything; we know A because of B, B because of C, ad infinitum.  But infinite regress is impossible--you cannot cross infinity!  Point in fact:  all knowledge is based and founded on faith.


There is an omniscient all-knowing God as a starting point.  And so, we must reason from God and with God, not against Him, nor to Him.  The Bible says that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all knowledge (cf. Prov. 1:7)--what is divinely revealed to us and has been reasoned from there. The Bible is the final authority and arbiter of truth for us and is self-attesting, appealing to no higher authority or source.  This is reasonable because if it did appeal to something/someone higher it couldn't be the final arbiter of truth, i.e., Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone as the sole authority--the Reformers' rallying cry. And so, we begin with God and explain the universe, we don't dismiss Him from the get-go and reason against Him, begging the question.


Where you start determines where you'll end up!  Athanasius said that the only system of thought Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point.   The problem with people is that they do know God and suppress this knowledge according to Romans 1:18 (and you must know God to suppress Him) and when they knew Him they were ungrateful and didn't worship Him becoming fools claiming to be wise. They denied the God they did know.  But we cannot answer the big questions without God in the equation--secularism cannot give the know-whys.


We aren't putting God on trial by attempting to "prove" Him, but the evidence is there for the willing if one is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead. Evidence strengthens existent faith.  Even given sufficient evidence sinners will not worship God without God's intervention to regenerate them and quicken faith in their blinded souls.  But there is never enough for the skeptic who doesn't want to believe. Infidels don't want to examine or believe in evidence because it's stacked against them and they don't have the answers--they just object to Christianity. We don't need all the evidence or answers to believe!  There is adequate evidence for the willing though. The trouble is that some infidels wouldn't repent if all their questions were adequately answered and shown the way the evidence is leading, because they feel comfortable in their lifestyle--they love their sin!   


People feign intellectual problems when they really have moral ones and just don't want to live the abundant life in Christ.  The heart of the matter, then, is a matter of the heart.  They are really making truth claims by denying the Source of truth and the Personification of it--Jesus.  The issue boils down to what Pilate asked Jesus:  "What is truth?"  It corresponds with reality and is the self-revelation of God, agreeing with God who delimits and defines it.  We can appeal to no higher authority.  It's self-defeating to say there's no truth because that would be a truth claim per se!   How do they know that or what if they're wrong? 


The truth is that we base all our knowledge on two principles of logic:  the law of noncontradiction and the law of cause and effect or causality. Logic is a valid way to find truth if the premise is true, but we only know something is true if God revealed it. You cannot prove anything that's not logical!  The fool who claims to know nothing is admitting he does know something!  This ends up with the reasoning of Socrates that to find truth you must admit your ignorance or that you could be wrong!


The problem is that we all interpret the evidence according to what we already believe and fit our theories or prejudices. Don't twist facts to fit the theories!   God has to make a believer out of us by converting us and bringing us to a saving knowledge of Christ.  We must never give leverage to the infidel by giving him ammunition to believe he cannot know anything about God!


Therefore, Christians have a personal encounter with God to validate their leap of faith and to reinforce it with the experience that God is good.  The infidel cannot defend his foolish faith! Thankfully, the Christian faith is the only religion that's fact, evidence, and historically sound and based.  NB:  Faith not based on evidence is blind faith!  The conclusion of the matter is that only Christians can know with certainty anything concerning God as the starting point, while the infidel doesn't have a leg to stand on and lives a lie and self-contradiction not knowing anything for sure.   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!

Deliver Us From Evil

Or what Jesus meant in the Disciple's Prayer was the evil one.  In my experience growing up in Christ, I am starting to be more aware of evil (evil intent masquerading as good) and evil ones or wicked ones.  Hebrews 5 says that a mature believer has learned to discern good and evil and only he is ready for the meat of the Word.  Don't ask God to eliminate all the evil in the world, because He'd have to eliminate you, too--only God is good!  Jesus said, "You, being evil, know how to give good gifts...."   The Bible exhorts us to put away the pointing of the finger because when you do that three are pointing back at you.

Let's get down to earth, so to speak:  all religion is evil, not just Islam--Christianity is not a religion, but a faith relationship getting to know God and is a religion of salvation and "saviorhood."  This may sound like a cliché to some but nevertheless, it must be stressed:  religion is man's attempt to gain the approbation of God and to find Him, while Christianity is God reaching down to man and saving him--He found us like a good shepherd looking for a lost sheep.   We never would've found Him had he not first sought us, says Blaise Pascal.

There is a controversial verse in 1 Peter 2:17 that talks about honoring the "king" or in some translations "emperor" and if an American were writing the Bible he'd say the President and one could apply it to whatever sovereign one's country had, whether prime minister or what have you.  It is hypercriticism to say that Peter was referring to King Herod and not to Nero--believe you me he was not writing from some ivory tower!

There does come a point when it is our duty to do civil disobedience and even participate in an assassination plot like Dietrich Bonhoeffer did against Hitler and was imprisoned.  But no Christian in his right mind would have agreed with Hitler had he known what he was up to and of his involvement in the occult and pagan religion and his hatred of Jews turned into the "final solution" of en masse extermination in concentration camps by inhumane means even.

To call a president evil that claims to be a Christian and is supported by many Christians is labeling  (we shouldn't label our brethren)  them evil too, and  this is a  kind of snap judgment, or to say it more delicately, criticism of another brother--"for who are you to judge your brother, for to his own master he stands or falls."  Don't be too timorous to assert that you "dissent, disagree, and protest" like Luther maintained in his desperation and persecution on our behalf during the onset of the Reformation.  Dare to be a Daniel and stand alone.  Remember he was Prime Minister to a pagan king.    Even if your whole church decides that a leader for whom they should be praying (1 Tim. 2-1-2) agrees that he is evil and there are still other churches that disagree it simply shows that that church is a mutual admiration society.  God is nonpartisan and we can't put Him in a box and label Him by our standards!    (Christ is supposed to be the unifying force according to Eph. 4:3)   and we shouldn't tolerate only one party line, worldview, or viewpoint.

Controversy is good--only worldly controversy is bad because we need to know the truth and not inhibit open debate.  Jesus was known as a "controversialist" and ruffled some feathers and upset the applecart too of the religious establishment in their own territory and turf.   In my church, we have members of both political persuasions and the pastor cannot take a strict party-line stand because this is a battleground state of extremists or partisan purists on both sides.  We have Michelle Bachmann and Al Franken--are two opposites, and our state is polarized.  Even families can become alienated like it happened in the Civil War or the War Between the States as some call it.  Sometimes our enemies are even members of our own house according to Jesus and Micah 7:6.  Don't just blindly follow the leader and think like the majority because the majority is rarely right.  I like the motto:  "Question authority, but don't ever question mother!"  Soli Deo Gloria!

Polarizing Political Hay

I was watching the History channel presentation "The Bible" the other day and a fellow "Christian" persecuted me for watching a "politically correct" version of the Bible (it had a black Samson). When he found out from listening to Fox News that the man who portrayed the devil had an uncanny resemblance to President Obama, he said he "owed me an apology" because he obviously liked that part.

The biggest problem we have in Congress is gridlock and dysfunction. Everyone seems to think that being pragmatic is evil and that compromising politically is like compromising your morals. Many politicians are beholden to the NRA for instance because of intimidation and financial ties even though the silent majority of Americans disagree with this organization. (For instance, 91 percent of Americans favor background checks for all gun purchases, while the NRA is against this.) What we need is the great compromise of 2013 just like there was a Great Compromise of 1850. Both parties are adamant and intransigent and unwilling to see the others' viewpoint.

We owe respect to our elected officials no matter what their personal religious beliefs or economic theories are. God has placed these rulers in their place of power over us for a reason and we are to "obey the rulers who have authority over [us]." When we call someone a devil or demonize we are judging and I hope I don't have to remind fellow Christians that it is unwise to judge. Even if we see the president as our "enemy" we are to "love [our] enemies." I have seen what appears to be nothing but hate and intolerance for Obama, and the Word says that "If we hate others we are walking in darkness." Paul said in Acts after making this mistake: "Do not speak evil of a ruler of your people." We are to pray for those in authority and I wonder if all these critics actually do pray like commanded.

To render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's is to show due respect, honor, and obedience. I'm not saying we can't disagree but we can do it in a civil manner. Paul says to fear God and honor the emperor and I think that would be the president in our application. Yes, there are several reasons to respect the president. Soldiers are sworn to obey him and they learn to salute the office of an individual whether they personally like him or not.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Whom Shall We Choose?

Like Joshua said, "Choose this day whom you shall serve...." We are on a road with a fork in it and have to decide which way to go. Josiah was the only king of Judah that had been compared to David and followed in the ways of him all the days of his life, not turning to the left nor to the right (2 Cor. 34:2). In Proverbs, we learn that it is wise not to go to one or another extreme--this is what is happening in the gridlock of our government! We are losing the voice of compromise and everyone wants his way or the highway so to speak. Where are the moderates that don't think they are speaking for God in everything?

I do not believe, as my presupposition, that you can assume God is a member of a political party or that one party represents the Christian worldview or agenda, like saying the litmus test is being pro-life. I agree with George Washington that we shouldn't even have parties [to be like bullies in my opinion] and we must accept those who disagree with us politically and not be fanatics politically, but only fanatics for the gospel of Christ which is the Great Commission, no reforming the cosmos, in which the devil is the god of.

I recollect the first election that I voted in: 1972 in Nixon vs. McGovern. I just liked Nixon like they liked Ike and had no real political philosophy: I thought he was the man as it were. I have since found out that he was dishonest and corrupt and had a dirty tricks man named Chuck Colson. If I were to vote all over again today I would not vote for Nixon even if I didn't consider myself a liberal.  (I was loyal to him to the bitter end, however, if I had known Bible doctrine I would not have been hurt.) However, God's Providence overruled and despite our foolishness He had a reason for putting Nixon in there to end the war et al. do we vote for the better man or for the one who agrees with our agenda? I voted for Reagan because I deemed him the better man than Jimmy Carter; I wanted a real man in the White House. Martin Luther said that he would rather vote for a competent pagan than an incompetent Christian. I don't know that that is right; Hitler was very competent and lots of people thought he could turn the economy around.

I believe voting for a person is a choice and we must believe that God is in charge and can use anyone He desires according to His pleasure. I do not want to find myself voting for the devil in disguise or an antichrist or one who believes in "another Jesus." Actually, in summation, both agenda and character, as well as competence, are valid reasons to choose but sometimes we are forced to choose between them. One must decide which is his most important issue or one that he could live with and pray the most for God to use in His will. Let's pray, "May the better man win!" Let's not compromise our principles to vote for what seems convenient or expedient to us, but what is good for the country.     Soli Deo Gloria!