Critique Of The Catholic Tradition

Back in 1517 the professor and Augustinian monk Martin Luther said in effect, "I dissent, I disagree, I protest" to the church of Rome and nailed the famous 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church All Souls in Wittenberg, Saxony, on Halloween night.  Since then there have been irreconcilable differences between the faiths and this started the Reformation, which brought about the Counter-Reformation of the Catholics at the Council of Trent, 1545-63.  In effect, they condemned the Protestants and anyone who believed in their formula of salvation dogma (church accepted doctrine) which is salvation by faith alone (they pronounced them "anathema" or cursed). Justification by faith alone became the battle cry of the Reformation.  Note that the Catholics condemn Protestants, and not the reverse as they said in Vatican Council II that one cannot be saved apart from the Church or that "it is necessary for salvation." What Protestants rejected was that Roman Catholicism is mainly a religion because it adds merit to grace and works to faith and doesn't rely solely upon Christ alone in faith, but faith also in the Church or Pope.  Catholicism is primarily a tradition that adherents follow without questioning authority.

The point of disagreement lies not in the deity of Christ or the infallibility of Scripture but in the doctrine of soteriology or of the study of salvation.  We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and the authority is in Scripture alone.  Catholics take issue at all these points:  They add merit to grace; works to faith; faith in the Church or Pope to Christ; and tradition and the Church to Scripture. Catholics believe that the instrumental means of salvation are the sacraments and as the Church administers them in baptism Holy Communion.  Protestants believe the instrumental means is faith and this is a gift of God so that we cannot boast.  Protestants see Christ as our Mediator (see 1 Tim. 2:5) while Catholics have declared Mary as Co-Redeemer or and Co-Mediator or Mediatrix. Protestants see all believers as priests unto God and we don't need a priesthood.  All believers have the authority to interpret Scripture, however, the responsibility and obligation to do it correctly, and not just the priest, for no prophecy of Scripture is of a "private interpretation" according to  2 Pet. 1:20.

Protestants have nothing against tradition as long as it complies with Scripture or doesn't contradict it. For example, where Catholics have unbiblical traditions or are out of sync or harmony with Scripture are traditions such as:  Believing the Church is built on Peter, the first Pope; there is a purgatory to purge of sin; prayers can be said to Mary and the dead saints (invocation of saints); images are made to kneel and pray before; the mass and sacraments are needed for salvation; salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church; in communion, the elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation); penance is for the restoration of fellowship; the notion that indulgences are made for the dead in purgatory; veneration and worship of Mary; holy water; canonization of saints; the celibacy of priests; and the repetition of the Rosary.  None of these are based on Scripture and in fact contradict sound doctrine.

Other traditions include the addition of nuns, monks, monasteries, convents, Lent, Ash Wednesday, Holy Week, All Saints Day, declaring the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church (per Col. 1:18 Jesus is Head), the infallibility of the Pope, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Mother of God. Basically, the problem lies in the fact that they attribute tradition as having equal authority as Scripture.  Whereas, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees:  "... [T]heir teachings are but rules taught by men."

Vatican II said in the 1960's on the Ecumenism:  "For it is through the Catholic Church alone, which is the all-embracing means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."


This is where contention arose:  Their spirit of exclusion and condemnation which is not based on Scriptural support but only edict and tradition of Rome [declared at the Council of Trent] and the Papists.  Read the blasphemy of Pope Pius the Ninth, the first "infallible" Pope in 1870:  "I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor to the apostles and Vicar to Christ.  I alone have the mission to guide and direct the ship of Peter.  I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  They who are with me are with the Church.  They who are not with me are out of the Church."   The Bible says that Christ is the Rock and there is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:4 that "that Rock" was Christ.  They see Peter as the "rock" but Christ only called him "Petros" or rock in Greek, and the truth he expressed as "Petra" or foundation rock" in Greek that would be the Rock of His church.  This church position is highly sectarian (Paul condemns sectarianism in 1 Cor. 1) and is exclusive.

Their veneration of the Virgin Mary as the tradition was declared at the Vatican in 1994 as follows:  "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.  The church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion.  ... The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an 'epitome of the whole gospel,' express this devotion to the Virgin Mary."  [Mat. 1:25 says that Joseph had "no union" with Mary until "she gave birth" implying losing her virginity, while Mark 6 and Mat. 13 list Jesus' brothers.] Praying to Mary contravenes the example of the Apostles and seeing her as sinless contradicts her addressing God as her Savior in the Magnificat. The obeisance to Mary was exemplified by Pope John Paul II in May of 1991 when he went to Fatima in Portugal and placed a crown of diamonds on a statue of Mary for saving his life from an assassination attempt. This is no less than the so-called hyper-elevation of Mary and seeing her as without sin through the immaculate conception and crowned as Queen of Heaven.  Pope Leo the Twelfth said, "No one can approach Christ except through the Mother."  He also said, "... [Nothing] according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary."  None of these dogmas are warranted in Scripture and undermine the gospel and the Incarnation.

In short, Rome has declared that there is no higher authority than the Pope, who they see as the direct successor of Peter, who they say was the first Pope [But Paul put him in his place, even accusing him of hypocrisy] and is head of the Church, and in order to be saved one must be subject to his authority, making Protestants heretics.  Relying on Mat. 16:18-19 they say Peter was given "the keys" but Jesus makes it clear in John 20:23 that the right to forgive was given to all the apostles and this was clearly delineated in Scripture--Acts 10:43 says all who believe in Jesus are forgiven!  Roman Catholics always refer to Mat. 16:18-19.  Catholics say Jesus was just talking to Peter when He gave authority, but Peter is the subset of the larger band of disciples and this is reading into the Scripture or eisegesis and to justify their understanding of the church and of the legitimacy of a Pope,  they are taking the verse out of context--the full analogy of Scripture, that is; for Scripture is its own interpreter (see John 20:23) and it never contradicts itself. It isn't wrong to call someone a heretic if you can prove it by Scripture, but they just declare it by church dogma and tradition and cannot base it on any biblical authority. Protestants believe the Bible is sufficient to rule our faith and we don't need tradition, which is acceptable only as it is concordant with Scripture and not in conflict with biblical dogma.  In sum, Roman Catholics believe there is no higher authority than the Pope and it is necessary to be subject to him for salvation [decreed by Pope Boniface the Eighth, in his Bull of 1302].  The reason they accept this is tradition and they believe in tradition as equal validity as the Bible.  Everyone must ultimately ask himself:  What is your rule of faith?

In the final analysis, if you find yourself compromising your faith or not believing sound doctrine is important and worth sticking to, or not sticking to your guns, you are on the way to a falling away. You must be in the know or be privy to what this religion stands for so you will be prepared when God opens the door for you to testify of the truth--He who is of the truth will listen. The adage it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere is fallacious.  Paul spoke of Israel as having a "zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (cf. Rom. 10:2, ESV).   We do not judge Catholic counterparts, but we must be willing to take a stand for the truth when the time is right.

As a quick litmus test of orthodoxy, ask a Catholic friend if he believes in free will.  Augustine said we did with reservations:  We have a free will, but we are not freed.  We are set free upon salvation, not born free--i.e., we don't have liberty, but are voluntary slaves of sin.   Rome has condemned anyone who doesn't affirm the Catholic doctrine of absolute free will--they believe the will is not affected by the fall of Adam, in other words, but remains in a neutral position freely able to choose Christ apart from God's intervention and aid.  Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (cf. John 15:5).  If left to ourselves, none of us would've chosen Christ!

Free will introduces merit and makes some worthy of salvation by their free choice.  A pertinent verse is Romans 9:19 which says, "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?'"  Another is John 1:13 which says we are not saved by the will of man but of God! If you came to Christ on your own, you probably left Him on your own!  Jesus plainly said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him"  (John 6:44, ESV).  And:  "... [T]his is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father"  (John 6:65, ESV).  This is commonly called the "wooing" or drawing ministry of the Holy Spirit who empowers us unto faith by quickening our spirit and opening our eyes.  We didn't choose our nature and we are only clay in the Potter's hands, but we are free to act according to our God-given nature, disposition, or temperament.  Who said we need free will to be saved--we need our wills made free!  "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure"  (Phil. 2:13, ESV).

The Bible says not to be unequally yoked, and this means you must have a mutual respect and understanding in your faiths, but not necessarily to be of the same denomination.  You must be able to pray together if you want to stay together.  If there is one thing that'll change your theology in a hurry it's falling in love!  Caveat:  The husband is in the role of the spiritual head of the family and must not be derelict or remiss in his duties to take charge and lead.    Soli Deo Gloria!

Suffer The Little Children

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven"  (Matt. 19:14, KJV).  Jesus welcomed children with open arms and blessed them when his disciples thought to rebuke them that He had no time in a day when children were of little worth in a man's world. The kingdom of God belongs to them in the sense of being grandfathered in to be included in God's blessings until they reach the age of accountability and know good from evil (per Isaiah 7:16).  We are to consider them in and treat them that way.  Children have the faith of their parents and haven't really developed a personal relationship with Christ--they are just beginning to know Him through those who teach and their family members.  You must have faith in Christ alone and that means not in Christ plus your parents or plus family ties--where would that faith be if the family fails.  Children can even be confirmed in the faith and not be saved, just having gone through the motions and memorized the Dance of the Pious.

Children can comprehend a great deal of spiritual truth and be enlightened, and even taste of the heavenly gift, and share in the Holy Spirit per Hebrews 6 (but these matters do not prove salvation), and love of Bible stories or preaching without coming to a complete spiritual apprehension--which is pending their decision to follow Christ and deny themselves. Even having the ability to discuss Bible doctrine or knowing one's way around Scripture is no proof of salvation.  They are incapable of making a decision to take up a cross at such an early age and their faith isn't confirmed until it is tested by God as if by fire, because it is more valuable than silver or gold. The gospel message must be presented clearly enough to be rejected, but not an easy-believism, which undermines it.  You aren't saved until you get convicted, realize you are lost and are converted through saving faith and genuine repentance, and most children cannot adequately articulate how they met Jesus and it transformed their life--for giving public testimony of Jesus is part of salvation ("For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved," says Romans 10:10, ESV).

Just liking church, doing church, or loving Jesus (you aren't saved by loving Jesus or your idea of Him) and so forth are not salvation--they are responding to their own world as they know it, and would love Buddha or Confucius if they were Asian--our emotional experiences can be duplicated in other religions.  Children are very impressionable and can be influenced even to be suicide bombers at that age of innocence.  The point is that we should bring them up in the training and nurture of the Lord and in the fear of God and God promises that our efforts of teaching them will bear fruit some day.  "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it," (cf. Prov. 22:6).  This refers to exposure to the admonition of the Lord.

Don't be so quick to believe a superficial testimony of a child who is incapable of discerning true spiritual truth.  What happens is that they have their parents faith and haven't developed their own until they get out on their own and in the real world and get tested.  Just because Parents stand in loco Dei or in the place of God and represent His authority as authority figures don't mean they can lord it over them without biblical sanction.  Children owe their parents due respect and affection just the same. In my estimation, it is next to impossible to "save" your children, however, you can lead them in the way of truth--and commend them to God and the Word of truth.  They are just the first lesson of relationship that the children are exposed to and must pass this test to go on to know the Lord.

All you can hope is that your labor was not in vain and God will take care of them, as you submit to His nurture and providence.  We instill truth in them as seeds that God will cause to grow and germinate someday unto salvation.  We are to treat all children as if they belong to the kingdom, and woe unto him that causes one of these to stumble in whatever faith he has.  But I believe that there comes a time to leave the bosom of the family, and they call it that because it's a sheltered environment, and then you must prove your faith is genuine and not just second-hand.  Jesus said we must be willing to renounce our family ties and allegiance to all other loyalties, and even love Him more than father or mother.  Remember, Christianity is not a way of life, but a vital, vibrant, and growing first-hand and personal relationship with the living God and Savior.  And it is no easy step to leave the hearth and cut the umbilical cord to find one's true identity in God without the aid of the familiar domicile.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Beginning Afresh

I have been asked if I wanted to start my own church or even religion, because I have a way of making impressions on people with my so-called "knowledge." If you want to start a church, you must wonder if you are a control freak and refusing to submit to one another in the body of Christ. I have been known to leave a church or two out of disagreement that could've been settled, but I admit I wanted things my way. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself:  "Who do you think you are?" By whose authority are you founding a church?  Are all the gifts of the Spirit available? Consider 1 Cor. 14:26 as an example of a church meeting where all gifts contribute.  Having a preacher doesn't make a fellowship a church--the church is a family and an organism with all parts of the body active and using its various spiritual gifts.  Just what gift do you think you have?  You never win by quitting because God isn't a quitter. I have heard it said that it doesn't matter who's right, but whose left!  The goal is faithfulness: "He who endures to the end shall be saved." If you start the "perfect church" it isn't perfect because you are in it!  "Loyalty is better than sacrifice" according to 1 Sam. 15:22.

Sectarian or cult leaders usually manifest a few given traits:  They warp the truth with their own personal take on doctrine;  they are sheep-stealers or proselytizers who don't begin with converting the unsaved; they are on a side-issue or invested in a novelty that distorts the truth to fit their fancy; they never are members of a larger fellowship, but think they have cornered the market on truth; they usually are led by charismatic figures or ones with a great personality and are devoted to them; and they don't see themselves as belonging to Christ alone, who purchased them. You must ask:  Is this a sect, or a bona fide church?

The issue at hand is whether the average Christian has the authority to start his own church just because he is in disagreement and is not content for some reason--it is really the sin of rebellion against authority duly established by God.  Cult leaders like the Rev. Jim Jones of the People's Temple were in rebellion long before their church slid into apostasy without the anchors of God's authority through the Word--they thought they were getting God's Word right from the horse's mouth! Church splits, which are really sectarianism, are always wrong and God has only allowed them for the same reason He permits divorce--due to the hardness of men's hearts.  Paul always urged church leaders to get along and work things out, not to react and go overboard to start all over from square one by building a new church.  New churches are not to be built on someone's else's territory but from where Christ in not preached--it is the cults who proselytize and steal sheep.  Even members of your own family are not your sheep but the church's at large and to pull the rug from under them is to uproot what God has done and destroy His work and labor of love.

Just think if everyone who disagreed with church policy or the pastor's sermon decided to begin a new church.  We don't need more churches, we need the truth--so take a stand!--and more Christians. The church is an institution in loco Dei (in place of God) and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft according to 1 Samuel 15:23.   In determining morality the end or purpose has to be considered as well as the motive or methodology--both the means and the ends have to be justified.  You should ask yourself:  What if everyone did it and wanted his own way?  What kind of precedent are you setting?

When we come to faith in Christ we are making a commitment and that is realized largely through interaction with the church community. There is a degree of loyalty to the church that we owe because we are fed and in their spiritual care.  Lack of church loyalty is a sign (though not the absolute standard) that a person is disloyal to Christ and unwilling to accept authority.  When you join a new church you are, in effect, starting all over and beginning afresh spiritually from the bottom of the ladder to success.  When you start a new church you must wonder whether you have authority to start at the top and whether you have God's blessing on what you are doing and it isn't just a whim.

There are times when we must begin all over, but this is after apostasy or backsliding.  The Bible doesn't admonish us to start in a new church but to face the music and do the responsible and adult thing like admit your failure and seek help.  We are not to run away from our problems, or worse yet, run away from God Himself!  Sometimes people have invested a lot in us and to write them off or to give them the shaft is not the loving thing to do and means we don't love our brother.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The One And Only

Are there any parallels between Jesus and any other great man of religion? Muhammad amassed an army of 10,000 to set out to conquer (killing thousands), while Jesus conquered hearts in His invisible kingdom through love ("My kingdom is not of this world"). Buddha, which means "Enlightened One," (while Jesus claimed to be the Light) and Buddha's real name was Siddhartha Gautama, and he came from an affluent Hindu family and lived a sheltered life in childhood. Muhammad and his followers looted and pillaged caravans, while Jesus had no flaws in morality and his followers aimed to live by his code of love.  Jesus was from a working-class family, while Buddha had privilege, Muhammad, a camel driver, married a rich woman 15 years his senior and then took to meditation.  Buddha left his wife and son to become an ascetic, while Jesus never married, was tempted of the devil for 40 days in the wilderness, and had a close-knit band of followers, both male and female to the very end, and Muhammad set out with his army in at least 66 battles.  Buddha was appalled at the suffering of his day, while Jesus was a man suffering, and acquainted with grief, even dying on a cross willingly. Buddha set out merely to reform Hinduism, while Christ was the fulfillment of Judaism and the prophecies.  Buddha claimed that his mother was impregnated by a six-tusked white elephant, while Jesus was born of a virgin woman in fulfillment of a prophecy made 700 years prior--the kind of life He lived would be consistent with this.

George Gordon, Lord Byron, the great Romantic poet, said that "if ever a man were God or God were a man, Jesus was both!"  John Stuart Mill, considered by some to be the most intelligent man to have ever lived, said Jesus was the "guide of mankind." Bertrand Russell, the atheist philosopher, said that "what the world needs is more Christian love and compassion"--people emulate Jesus like no other man as the epitome of love in action.  Will Durant said that Jesus is the dominant figure of Western Civilization.  No one predecessor is His equal and no successor meets His standards of perfection and lawlessness.

Jesus, Himself, challenged His enemies to convict Him of sin.  Even the Koran says that He was without sin.  The crassest heretics have not denied his sin-free life either. He was flawless, whereas Muhammad had his flaws. Buddha couldn't have been perfect and didn't even claim it--he was agnostic--because he claimed to have come to "Enlightenment" after his search under the bo tree near the river Gaya, and therefore couldn't have always known the way, while Jesus confounded the Pharisees at the age of 12 and knew the business of His Father, and didn't claim to know the way but to be the way--Buddha didn't believe in God, and said that, if there was one, He couldn't help you find enlightenment, because you must find it on your own.

You cannot compare Jesus with any other man (you can only contrast), for He is alone and incomparable:  His character was unique (flawless, without sin, and it is said that He is in a moral category by Himself, and it has been well said that His character supports His claims); His conduct was unprecedented (He forgave His enemies on the cross, and He invariably practiced what He preached); His claims were unparalleled (made Himself the Son of God--no other religious leader such as Muhammad or Buddha, an agnostic, has said this); and His credentials were unequaled (His life didn't belie but confirmed His claims, His miracles were true signs and consistent with his nature, and not just for show or selfish reason of profit, and even His enemies acknowledge His character). The caliber of His life was such that no one could challenge His answers and authority, and accuse Him of wrongdoing or sin.

The founders of other faiths are known for what they said, Jesus is primarily known for who He was and what He did--that He claimed to be the Son of God, died on the cross, and rose from the dead! Any man can claim to be God for instance, (but you need credentials and character), but to prove it by rising from the dead is quite another!  It has been said that the kind of life Jesus lived verified His claims and you would expect the Son of God to behave like Him--there is no ungodliness or weakness in His person. There is everything we would want in a man to worship and adore and He doesn't fall short of any ideal or standard, but only inspires even the greatest of men--even Napoleon proclaimed Him to be no mere man and he claimed to know men.

Jesus lived in obscurity as a common man without privilege: He had no army, yet He conquered millions; He never wrote a word, yet He inspired more books and inspired more literature than anyone else; He had no riches, yet He made many rich; He had no formal education, yet He was the greatest teacher to have ever lived.  Jesus was not born into privilege or opportunity, but into an average working family and knew what the average man went through in daily life from personal experience.  He confounded the Pharisees with His brilliance at the age of twelve with His questions and answers concerning the Scriptures.  There was no duplicity in Him, for He practiced what He preached, yet He condemned hypocrisy in others.  Though men have conquering armies, Jesus conquered hearts and many millions would die for Him.

Who was the greatest leader of all time? Who has done the kind of miracles that have never been duplicated?   Who was the greatest teacher? Who gave us the highest ethic or moral code to live by? Who lived the holiest life of all men?  Who has the most followers and worshipers of all time? Who was the greatest philosopher or "un-philosopher" of all time?  Who has done the best for mankind? Who had the greatest personality of all time? Who sets the highest standards to live by? Who had a more profound impact on civilization, either direct or indirect (inspiring the building of hospitals, universities, orphanages, charities, and missions)?

All other men pale in comparison to Christ and no one can meet His standards of holiness.  Usually, familiarity breeds contempt, but not so with the disciples who were near Him--they never stopped admiring His perfection and even worshiped Him.  What Jesus did, no man can do and we don't compare Jesus with others but contrast them:  We don't say, "Jesus the Great," though we say Alexander the Great, or Peter the Great, for even that is an insult and do Him injustice; what we do is contrast Jesus with others and make Him the standard to judge all of mankind by.  If God became a man, what kind of man would you expect Him to be?

Of the greatest men who have ever lived, none have dared to claim to be God in the flesh or the one and only way to God.  Jesus didn't claim to be the best way to God, nor one of many ways, but the one and the only way to the Father.  Only Jesus had the "words of eternal life" and showed us the Way. He didn't claim to be telling us the truth, but that He was the incarnation of truth itself  ("I am the truth").  He said that all who are "of the truth" will hear Him, but unbelievers are those who reject the truth. In all of recorded history, no one has matched His personality and life! Many books can claim to be true, but only God's Word is Truth with a capital T, and the testimony is this: nature forms you, sin deforms you, education informs you, prison reforms you, but only Christ transforms you!

The New Testament books are not to be compared with the writings of other religions where so-called miracles are attributed, for they were written within a generation of the events and by eye-witnesses--not compiled centuries later.  The difference between Christ's miracles and those of other faiths is that they were signs of His deity, and not just fantastic, for a show, or for personal advantage. You can take the miracles out of Islam, for example, and the religion remains intact, but if you remove the miracles from the Bible you disembowel it and make it nothing.  Without miracles, Jesus would have only been a footnote in history and not worth following.   Even Muhammad believed Christ performed miracles and he did none himself (there are none in the Koran)--only years later did writers ascribe some to him.

After the crucifixion, His own followers were ready to write Him off and go on living as if they had wasted three years of their life.   It was the miracle (the great sign that He would give) and the fact of the resurrection that turned a disbanded and demoralized group of followers into roaring lions of the faith, who were not afraid of the authorities anymore, nor of death itself.  If God were to become a man, you would expect Him to be like Jesus and do miracles and Jesus foots the bill and doesn't let us down on any count.  It is one thing to claim to be God and quite another to prove it and have people die for your claims! "He spoke like no other man ever spoke"--with authority (He didn't say, "Thus says the Lord, but, "I say unto you.").

The Christian scholar Philip Schaff portrays Christ graphically as follows:

This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Muhammad, and Napoleon; without science and learning shed more light on matters human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

Nothing can explain Him, except the profound hypothesis that He is the living Son of God!   We don't compare Christ, we contrast Him who is in a league of His own as the one who claimed to be God in the flesh or incarnated--you can rest assured of this:  No one will ever improve on Jesus! As John Stuart Mill (considered one of the most brilliant minds of all time and an atheist) said he is "a unique figure not more unlike all his predecessors than all his followers,"

The problem with most would-be messiahs is that their character doesn't support their claims and the problem is that familiarity breeds contempt with men, but there is no discrepancy with Christ--his character does not disprove His deity, but it is consistent with it and confirms it.  No one, not even a psychiatrist could analyze Him as unbalanced despite His claims.  Christ is beyond our analysis (no one can figure Him or peg Him) and we can only be in awe as we wonder what kind of man would we expect the Son of God to be.  Who can understand a man who washes His disciple's feet, yet claims to be the Judge of mankind?   Soli Deo Gloria!

Consequences Of The Resurrection...

If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain according to the Apostle Paul.  The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar of Christianity, the linchpin and crux of the matter you might say because it all depends on this one event to verify Christ's claim and to give us reason to believe in an afterlife at all.  All of Christianity depends on this truth and will come tumbling down without it.  The resurrection attests to the deity of Christ as the Son of God or God manifested in the flesh, becoming man and that He won the battle that we were in.

The historicity of Christ is not questioned by any reputable historian; even atheist secular historian H. G. Wells admits the New Testament gospels were written between ca. AD 50 and AD 75--within a generation of the events and within the time-frame of there being witnesses still alive to verify the written record. Secular Humanist historian Will Durant vouches for the historicity of Jesus and dismisses the possibility of it being legend or myth, for example. Many men of learning have tried to disprove this historic event and no one has ever succeeded--some have even converted after examining the evidence that demands a verdict.  Many theories have been debunked and it all ends up showing the reliability of the record.

History by its very nature is nonrepeatable and you cannot use the scientific method to verify an event.  The substantial historicity of the resurrection is more variously proved than any other event in antiquity.  What you have to examine is the credibility and reliability or veracity of the witnesses and the dependability or accuracy of the written record not being corrupt, but preserved intact as written, The eye-witnesses were putting their lives on the line by standing up for Jesus and proclaiming His resurrection--they often were fed to the lions or burned at the stake, stoned, or crucified if they didn't recant that Jesus is Lord and admit Caesar is Lord.

Note: The test of the veracity of these apostles was their willingness to die for the faith and men usually tell the truth on the deathbed.  It is hard to keep a lie going among several men (as Watergate proved in 1973 when the most powerful 12 men in our nation couldn't keep a lie going for 3 weeks, according to Chuck Colson, Nixon's dirty-tricks man), but note that there are no inconsistencies in their testimonies--the eye-witnesses, without collusion, do not contradict each other and still tell it their own way.

The greatest sign and miracle that proves the resurrection is the way it turned a bunch of cowardly and timid, disbanded, demoralized men into roaring lions of the faith and willing to die for it as they were no longer afraid of death (why?  they believed in the resurrection!).  The authorities could tell that "these men had been with Jesus."

There are many questions that the skeptic needs to answer:  Who moved the stone?  Where was the body?  What about the numerous appearances over a period of forty days?  What about the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day in tribute? What about the way the world was turned upside down or topsy-turvy? What about the way the faith spread like wildfire in forming the church, which soon became a worldwide outreach and phenomenon?  What about the guards? What about the undisturbed grave clothes?  And what about the historical record left by eyewitnesses? Finally, how did so many believers come about?

It is because of the resurrection that we believe in an afterlife that is glorious and superior to this one and not just a spiritual existence.  It proves the Father was satisfied with the passion of Christ.  You must realize that before this most Jews were unsure whether there was a resurrection or afterlife at all!

Either this event was one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind, or it is the most wonderful fact of history--in fact, its climax or turning point (paraphrased from acclaimed apologist Josh McDowell).  It was no idle tale perpetrated by deliberate liars--the gospels are not the rantings and ravings of madmen or deluded diehards.  Would you risk your life for a lie? Do you know how difficult it is to perpetuate a plot and keep a lie going without a smoking gun getting out to show its falsity? You cannot rule it out by saying you don't believe in dead people coming back to life--the opposite of Christ's resurrection is that He didn't rise that people don't rise in general (He is God and not just "people").

Saying you don't believe in the resurrection does not constitute evidence in a court of law, for you are not a qualified witness of what transpired that day--and your testimony is irrelevant.  Evidence by definition is a fact that is allowable in a court of law as bona fide datum either for or against the allegation.  It has been said by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, and one of the world's leading experts on evidence said that any unbiased courtroom would declare the resurrection to be a historical fact (note that facts can be ascertained and verified by other than just the scientific method, including testimony by credible witnesses).

No matter what stand you take, it takes a leap of faith and one is believing something he cannot prove either way scientifically--the question ultimately rides on the philosophical issue of whether there is a God, and knowing that God can do whatever He desires and with Him nothing is impossible. Another factor to consider:  There is a difference between a fanatic dying for what he believes and an eye-witness dying for what he knows and is in a position to know whether it is true or not--he will not willingly die for a lie.

In the final analysis, there have been multiple theories put forth such as the disciples stealing the body, or they had hallucinations, or that Christ didn't really die, but fainted or swooned, or that the authorities stole the body; however, the record makes it clear that none of these arguments hold water and are easily dismissed--in a court of law the verdict would have to be rendered, without prejudice, that Christ did indeed rise from the dead.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Why Study The Bible?

It has been well said that the Word was not written to increase our knowledge (note that I am referring to knowledge about the Bible, not knowing the Bible's message, nor knowing the Author and I am critiquing formal Bible education, not informal studies or self-study), but the purpose of the Bible is to change our lives.  I used to really like Bible trivia games because I was so good at it and seemed to have a knack for it because of my extensive studies and readings.  However, I soon realized that trivia is unimportant and a person can know a lot of it and not get the message of the Bible.  I believe that the teacher's goal is to get the student prepared to study on his own and not be dependent on him, but weaned, as it were.  You are said to retain up to thirty percent of what you study, five percent of what you hear, and about ten percent of what you read--the mind has to be very selective, or we would have a cognitive overload.  Repetition is the key and the brain retains best by reinforcement--that is why it's good to take notes during a sermon to highlight when God speaks to you.  If you seek the Lord, you will taste and see that the Lord is good:  The proof of the pudding is in the eating--I had the advantage of having experienced this as a youth and I have grown in my love for the Word.

Knowledge for its own sake is not right, but it is only a means to an end--we are not all striving to be scholars or winners at trivia contests (why?), but only to enjoy our Bible more and be equipped to rightly divide the Word of truth. Paul warns:  "He that thinks he knows something, doesn't know yet as he ought to know" in 1 Cor. 8:2.  It is not a matter of being talented at theology (which comes from exposure and a clear-thinking and trained mind, but what kind of attitude one brings to the Word ("O, how I love thy law.  It is my meditation all the day long, " according to Psalm 119:97).  We are not better Christians merely because of our knowledge. Bible knowledge is only a tool that one has to learn how to use and not abuse. Some believers know enough to be dangerous and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!  I know of a Christian who wanted to take a seminary-like college course on the Bible so he could get a pastor-like handle on it; I believe he felt insecure in his knowledge, wisdom, and understanding (which come from God).  I asked him why he wanted to take the study and he really had no reason but to increase his knowledge.

I am very suspicious of Bible classes led by leaders who are not Spirit-filled or don't know the Lord--they know their way around the Bible and can discuss doctrinal issues that arise--they may even be intoxicated with the deeper truths, not even mastering the basics.  Don't ever forget that the goal is to know the Lord, not be informed--the Gnostics taught that we are saved by knowledge, even secret knowledge for the select, elite few.  Familiarity with Scripture or knowing your way around in it can be said of the devil, and we don't want to be impressed with someone for that reason. He uses it to his own advantage and schemes.  It is more vital to know the Author of Scripture than to be a scholar schooled to teach (sometimes that is all you can do with knowledge--teach it--especially if you cannot put it into practice (like lawyers who decide they want to teach law instead of practicing it, where the money is--like they say, if you can't do, teach!

"Knowledge puffs up," said Paul in 1 Cor. 8:1; however, it is love that builds up and we ought to practice that--I don't mean love in word only but in deed and in truth (cf. 1 John 3:18).  Man has a tendency to be arrogant and conceited in his knowledge and we have no right to think that we have an edge or have cornered the market.  We don't love knowledge per se, we love Christ and His Word!  If you take a Bible course, I'm saying, have a godly purpose for it, and not just to get a Bible education. If you have the gift of teaching you should take sufficient coursework, but what is paramount, is having the acquired skill to study the Bible on your own and know how God speaks to you particularly in His Word. Remember this, the disciple is not above his teacher and if you don't feel the teacher knows the Lord better than you, then you are in the wrong class--we don't go to one-up the teacher or show him up (regardless of Psalm 119:99, we don't pull rank on the prof or teacher!).

The premier goal of the Christian walk is to walk with Christ and know Him and have a growing relationship with Him.  If you know your gifts and where you belong, don't go on a guilt trip that you don't know as much as your brother--God blesses in manifold, multitudinous ways, and we are not to compare ourselves with others.  If knowledge per se was the key, then the best Christian would simply be the smartest one or the one who took the most courses.  We aren't looking for professional Christians but genuine ones.  God wants us to be authentic and sincere, not copycats emulating one another--we are to obey our leaders and imitate their faith though. Jesus said that eternal life is to know Him! We are to keep our eyes on Him and focused on the agenda and mission He assigned to us and commissioned us with--the Great Commission.

A Bible student can know all the answers and still not know the Lord very well--he may just be well-read!  We don't want to give the impression Christians are know-it-all's who like to quote Scripture to impress people.  There comes a time when a believer cuts the umbilical cord of his teacher and seeks the Lord till he finds Him. The search, according to R. C. Sproul, for Christ begins at salvation--don't assume all Christians have "found" the Lord.  One may say he knows the Bible, but the Christian who knows the Lord knows better, and his portion will not be taken away.

We remain as students of the Word our whole lives and never stop learning--when we are saved the Holy Spirit endows us with His illuminating and enlightening ministry to open the eyes of our hearts to the Word if we are teachable and receptive.  We must have a willing spirit, an open mind, and a needy heart for God to speak to us in the Word.  God looks at the motive:  True morality consists of a good motive and a good objective done in a wise manner!  A true believer who is somewhat biblically ignorant, but knows the Lord can get along with surprisingly little Bible knowledge, but the important trait he has is knowing the Author! I am not saying ignorance is bliss either because God puts no premium on ignorance. 

We study for Bible to be able to answer those who taunt us and to be equipped for every good work (i.e., "thoroughly furnished unto all good works," according to 2 Tim. 3:17.  It is the tool of our trade and we are given this gift which is better than if Jesus were here in person--we have the whole counsel and will of God!

We must realize that a Bible teacher, whose knowledge is a byproduct of his calling and, I hope, his love for the Word, is not always an ideal believer that we all emulate automatically (he may be someone's mentor though), but we are all unique creations in Christ who have different callings, ministries, missions, and gifts.  Many of us don't need to know more, but to apply more of what we do know!  The motive should not be to desire to know the answers or to show off, but because one loves the Word and senses that God is calling him to it, i.e., formal Bible education. You can be a great preacher without formal education if you are called to the ministry--look at C. H. Spurgeon, G. Campbell Morgan, H. A. Ironside, D. L. Moody, et al.

I must reemphasize and define knowledge in itself (and the attitude "just gimme the facts!" doesn't fly!); knowledge per se is no indicator of maturity or of a growing relationship with the Lord (there are seminary grads who don't adequately know the Lord)--if this was the case, I would rank among the most "spiritual" of Christians, because of my studies, blogging, and classes taught through the years.  I would never take a Bible course for its own sake, out of curiosity, to please others, to ingratiate myself,  nor because I think it's the thing to do.  A believer's knowledge about the Bible or about God is no gauge of his knowledge of the Bible, nor of God.  If there was a direct correlation between knowledge per se, that would make me a bona fide spiritual giant; but there's more to consider: In the final analysis, it is in obeying the Word that we find the power, not in knowing it (there is the danger of arrogance) and to whom much is given, much is required.  "PREPARE TO SHOW YOURSELF APPROVED..."  (CF. 2 TIM. 2:15).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Happy Campers

I'm a pretty good judge of demeanor and I have seen the faces of many so-called music icons or legends that don't seem truly happy--only on the surface, that is.  This may shock you that money, fame, success, sex, nor power can buy happiness.  There is "pleasure in sin for a season" according to Hebrews 11:25, and then you have to invent new ways to sin as it enslaves you.  Let's distinguish between happiness and Christian joy. Happiness depends upon happenings and happenstance, whereas joy is an inner sense that no man can rob you of, and doesn't depend on outward stimulus. We are to "rejoice in the Lord always" (cf. Phil. 4:4), and in every circumstance--this is not impossible, look at Paul in jail!

The happiness of the world is fleeting and superficial and is always in a state of flux and can vary like a weather vane. Feelings come and go like a roller-coaster or yo-yo, but attitude and character are permanent--it's not what happens to us as much as what happens in us that determines our joy.  To quote Mother Teresa of Calcutta, "True holiness is doing the will of God with a smile." Personally, I am happiest when I am doing the Lord's work.

Joy, on the other hand, does not depend on circumstances and is a gift from God as a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22 (i.e., "love, joy, peace"). You can be joyful in jail like Paul and Silas.   I look at faces of news anchors and television personalities and celebrities, and they do seem happy; but how much of that is dependent on their good fortune of having a high profile job, friends, success, fame, good pay, and a fun to boot?  If some rock idle lost his voice and couldn't sing anymore, or became impotent, how happy would he be.  But to Christians, joy is our strength in time of need from our Paraclete or Comforter, the Holy Spirit:  "... The joy of the LORD is your strength..." (cf. Neh. 8:10).  In short, we are satisfied customers.

Beethoven was one who survived his circumstances, rose to the occasion, and adjusted:  He became deaf and took life by the horns, not giving up on his dreams--he was a survivor! The Epicureans sought pleasure as their premier goal, but not maximum pleasure--only an optimum level.  Our Declaration of Independence announces our right to the pursuit of happiness--it's the American way. The Pythagoreans in ancient Greece discovered that music soothed the savage beast and brought temporary happiness--the therapeutic value of music was esteemed even in antiquity.  

Now, I'm asking you to take inventory and try to analyze what makes you happy--is it the Word of God and worship in the Spirit?  Do you have spiritual goals and aspirations?  The spirit of man is how God sees him.  God judges our motives and our heart, that man cannot see. To be a happy camper doesn't mean you've accepted the status quo--that is complacency! We are to have purpose and raison d'etre for living in Christ.

People like to greet us with pleasantries such as "How's it goin'?"  This implies that we are up and down depending on circumstances.  The honest answer may be:  "It's goin'!"  We need to be set free from this vicious cycle of dependent feeling and realize the only true lasting joy comes as a result of walking with the Lord.  I don't believe in Pollyanna Christianity where everything is always positive, because we all go through many tribulations to enter the kingdom of God (cf. Acts 14:22; Psalm 34:19).  

What I'm saying is that pertinent inquiries might be as to whether we are content, fulfilled, and joyful in the Lord, (does our life have impact and meaning?), not whether we accept the status quo as par for the course, and we are to grin and bear it with the philosophy of the stoical "stiff upper lip" or "Que, sera, sera" (whatever will be, will be) thinking, or something is inherently wrong with us. Most people would be in a state of shock in hearing an honest we should be more honest with ourselves and with others, and make an appraisal of our feelings.

But most people don't want an honest answer either!  This is because Proverbs warns: "Even in laughter, the heart may ache, and sorrow is good for the heart." The Preacher says that it is better to go to the house of mourning than of mirth! We can be laughing on the outside and crying on the inside--how tragic and deceptive.  Beware of those who have picked up on the vocabulary and aren't spontaneous with replies, because situations vary and so should answers.  

Caveat:  We may be tempted to become hedonists who are merely pleasure seekers (i.e., the "eat, drink, and be merry" philosophy), but we must strive for spiritual hedonism, or seeking pleasure in God.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Our Snake Oil

In antiquity, myrrh was like snake oil that was touted as the panacea for anything or the cure-all for everything from colds to bad breath much like Apple cider vinegar is today. We know today that they were just gullible and unscientific and didn't even have the rudimentary medical knowledge, which resorted to superstition such as eating gizzards or drinking urine.  If there was any cure, aspirin, for example, it was accidental, pure happenstance, or chance.  The Chinese were further along with their alternative medicine of acupuncture.  Jesus was given myrrh at his birth as a gift and that is why--it was celebrated for its medicinal value.

Now Christ is our cure-all (not meant in a derogatory manner of speaking) for what ails us--sin, which is the root cause of all our ailments.   He is the answer to our dilemma and dual predicament. We have a problem with what we've done (our sins) and must be forgiven and justified by the blood, and we have a complication due to the way we are in our old sin nature (our sin cleansed by the sanctification of the cross of Christ).   We must then be forgiven for what we've done and changed from what we are. We must put our faith in the person and work of Christ (knowing Him as Lord and Savior), who paid a price we couldn't pay, on a debt He didn't owe! Greater love has no man than this:  That he lay down his life for his friend!

We lose focus when we think of salvation as our helping God out in saving us, or in cooperating--it is not synergistic, but monergistic and that means God does all the work--it is passive and not a cooperative venture,  as we receive the gift of salvation apart from any works we've done (cf. Titus 3:5) and any merit we may think we deserve--grace means simply that we cannot add to it, we didn't earn it or deserve it, and we cannot ever repay it!  

All we have to offer Him is brokenness and strife, all of our sin are to be cleansed in the blood of the Lamb who is worthy--"our righteousness is as filthy rags," according to Isaiah 64:6.  We are quickened unto faith and repentance as the gift of God and these are not works as Catholics claim. They are God's gift, but we do them, God doesn't do them for us--we have to make good and take the leap of faith, and show the fruits of repentance per Acts 26:20 that prove it.

In short, it's not what we do for God, but what He does for us that is key and the focus of our attention.  I'm not against merit or good works, just against those done in the flesh for salvation and apart from the Holy Spirit.  God ordains good works for us to do per Eph. 2:10, "that we should walk in them."   However, God rewards us for what He does through us--how amazing!  His work in us because we are simply vessels of honor used by Him for His glory ("... the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever," according to the Westminster Confession of 1646).

Let me add that the Reformers' theology and the rallying cry of being saved through faith is summed up in Jonah's cry: "Salvation is of the LORD." It is not a cooperative venture, nor an independent one, but a passive one whereby we receive Christ as Lord and Savior and subsequent salvation as a free gift.  Salvation is either of us, of us and God, or of God alone; the only way to be sure of it is for it to be of God alone, for we are sure to foul things up. 

This is contrary to the tradition of man that says we must qualify for heaven by our deeds.  It is human instinct to be incurably addicted to doing something for our salvation, as the Jews asked Jesus:  "What shall we do, to do the works of God?" Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent" (cf. John 6:28-29). It's grace all the way as John 1:17 says, "The law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Obedient Christian

It has been wondered among believers what the obedient Christian looks like--can we spot them? Jesus said that if we love Him we will obey His commandments (cf. John 14:21).  Obedience is the only test of faith according to John MacArthur, and can be distinguished but not separated from it, as they are equated and correlated in Heb. 3:17-18; Rom. 1:5; 16:26; Acts 6:7, and John 3:36.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer said eloquently: "Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes."  In Acts 5:32 it says that the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey Him.

There is no such thing as a disobedient Christian as a subclass or rank of Christian, though Christians can and do disobey God and sin both willingly and unintentionally. We never reach a point of entire sanctification or perfectionism as Wesleyans and Deeper Life or Keswick movement people like to call it, because if we deny we have sinned we make Him a liar and His word is not in us according to 1 John 1:10.   Also, Proverbs 20:9 (ESV) says, "Who can say, 'I have made my heart pure, I am clean from my sin?'"  The psalmist said he'd seen the limit of all perfection in Psalm 119:96.

We are not fruit inspectors of each other's fruit but should examine ourselves carefully to see whether we are walking in the faith--don't break faith!  In other words, we should be too busy in our walk with the Lord to wonder about our brother's walk and whether he is obedient.  We should search our own hearts and examine our own fruits.  The Spirit-filled life exhibits the fruit of the Spirit in increasing bounty as one matures because fruits are grown and if we abide in Christ they are a natural result.

The reason we obey God is that we are His creatures and it is fitting and proper as we owe Him this.  We don't feel we have to as believers but want to or get to.  God alone is worthy of our obeisance and homage.  God's commandments are not burdensome (cf. 1 John 5:3) and we do them "in love."  To love Him is to obey Him!  The Bible was given to shed light on God's will and as believers, we naturally seek God's will in our lives as a matter of His lordship.  All sin is disobedience according to Scripture, and we become more godly and less sin-prone as we mature in Christ.  God's Word gives us instruction in righteousness.  Bear in mind that it is God's Spirit living in us that gives us the power to overcome sin and obey Christ and become Christlike--we cannot do it on our own (the Christian life is not hard, it's impossible!).  God's commandments are for our own good and He knows what is best for us.  We must not rely on the energy of the flesh, but learn that He gives us the power in the Spirit--we don't have the freedom to live in the flesh, but the power to live in the Spirit.

The Navigators taught me a great truth:  The obedient Christian is regularly involved in prayer, getting into Bible study and reading, fellowship and worship, and witness and outreach.  We have both a ministry to our brothers and a mission to the unsaved in our obedience.  There are Lone Ranger Christians who navigate solo and think they don't need the body--if you love Jesus, you will love His body!  We must be "rooted and grounded" in the body of Christ and in the truth to have discernment and growth and move forward in our walk.  It is absolutely impossible to be living in obedience apart from the discipline, nurture, discipleship, and fellowship of the body of Christ! We all need each other and no one, no matter how gifted, has all the gifts and doesn't need the other members of the body.

Furthermore, obedience not only implicates obedience to the Word per se, but to all dully delegated authority or "the powers that be" in Paul's lingo.  A Christian must obey the law unless it is in clear contradiction to the Word.  He is a good and upright or model citizen who not only exercises his rights but does his responsibilities.  To obey authority also means parental and any authority in loco Dei or in the place of God, even an institution.  The government is a God-ordained institution, just like the church and the family--but family is the premier authority and most important one to be protected.  Another aspect of obedience is submission to one another in the name of Christ, and not lording in over others, for instance, but allowing Christ to rule in His body, the church.  The final aspect of obedience that must take place is accountability because if one is a rogue all on his own and doing his own thing he is out of fellowship with Christ and disobedient to direct commands.  Every believer needs accountability and is accountable, whether it is to his suiting or not.

In my personal walk, obedience is how I relate to the leading of the Holy Spirit as I walk in the Spirit and walk by faith and not by sight (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7).  Paul said, "As many as are led by the Spirit are sons of God."  The goal is to know Christ through the body and, our walk and make Him known by our testimony, witness, and mission.   When I read the Word I get "Aha!" moments where I feel God speaking to me or me of something convicting, which you might call an existential experience--you can experience God in the Word and He has promised to use it to speak to us.  I obey Christ by submitting to authority and not trying to make up my own rules, and do my own thing, like Israel was doing in Judges 21:25 ("each man did what was right in their own eyes...").

I believe prayer is the acid or litmus test of the believer and a true gauge of his pursuit of holiness and fellowship with God.  Fellowship is another test to consider:  '"If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another ..." (1 John 1:7, ESV).  God has put me in the ministry of doing a Bible study and I am being obedient by preparing and studying for that--when God considers us faithful, He puts us into the ministry. I also obey God by abiding (or staying in fellowship by having no unconfessed or unjudged sin) in Christ and being sensitive to the Spirit so as not to quench or grieve the Spirit  I am ready to witness of my faith in obedience and look for open doors from God at all times, and thank God for every opportunity that He gives me to share my faith in observance of the Great Commission. In short, I have heard it expressed very well:  A great Christian has a great commitment to the Great Commission and the Great Commandment! There are many commandments in the Bible as well as prohibitions, but basically, we become a natural as we go on to know the Lord and walk with Him in faith and fellowship.  Soli Deo Gloria!

True Truth

"... [B]ecause they refused to love the truth and so be saved"  (2 Thess. 2:10, ESV).

Our relationship to the truth:  We know it, believe it, submit to it, and then love it, according to John MacArthur.
What we witness today is the New Age definition of finding the truth within your own supraconsciousness, and the Postmodern value system that there is no absolute truth, but what may be true for you isn't for someone else, not to mention the prevalent Secular Humanism and their scientism or misuse of science to make statements out of their proper domain,  and belief in science as a religion.

"Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice" (cf. John 18:38, NKJV).
"Sanctify them by Your truth.  Your word is truth"  (John 17:17, NKJV).

BY DEFINITION:  THERE IS SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OR FACT, HISTORICAL TRUTH OR FACT, AND LEGAL TRUTH OR FACT. 

SCIENCE DEPENDS UPON MEASUREMENT, OBSERVATION, AND REPETITION AND MAKING INFERENCES EITHER DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE;

LEGALITY UPON ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, AND EXHIBITS OF VISUAL, AUDIBLE, AND ORAL TYPES (LEGAL EVIDENCE NEED ONLY BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE CONSIDERED TRUE); 

HISTORY DEPENDS UPON THE VERACITY AND FIDELITY OF DOCUMENTS, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND/OR INTERNAL RECORDS-- AND EVIDENCE SUCH AS WHETHER IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF AND OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS.  

Francis Schaeffer referred to truth that is objective and true regardless of whether we believe it or not or no matter who believes; it is always true in all situations and circumstances as "true truth."  Get over the phrase "It works for me!" as being a valid truth claim. Because something works don't prove its truth, Christianity isn't true because it works, but works because it's true. The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, who borrowed from Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, saw all truth as God's truth and that all truth meets at the top. God cannot tell a lie (cf. Titus 1:2) and is the God of truth, and John said that  we know the truth and that no lie is of the truth (cf. 1 John 2:21), meaning that something cannot be self-contradictory and in violation of the law of noncontradiction (something cannot be something else and not be it at the same time in the same manner). That law is the first premise of truth and we could know nothing apart from this law, for you have to assume it to disprove it.  In general, we are to speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15) and bear witness of the truth in Jesus as we witness, and the unbeliever is called one who "rejects the truth" in Romans 1:28.

All knowledge of the truth is either a priori (before the fact or happening) or a posteriori (or after the fact or as a consequence).  We either develop experience or reason things out, but most of what we accept as true we learned by faith!  Paul's complaint was that they were always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth (cf. 2 Tim. 3:7).  Jesus said, that "when He the Spirit of truth comes" He will "convict the world" (cf. John 16:8). All truth is revealed truth, for only one of infinite knowledge can know it and God opens the eyes of our hearts. He alone decides whether one perchance repents and "comes to a knowledge of the truth" per 2 Tim. 2:25.

People are born blind to the truth and must have their eyes opened by God:  "[Y]ou will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (cf. John 8:32, ESV).  Note that there is something known as propositional truth and the Bible reveals it to us this way as statements that are either true or false, right or wrong, but Jesus is the very incarnation or personification of truth itself, known as a person.  Jesus didn't say He was telling us the truth, or speaks forth truth, but claimed to be truth--we can experience truth through knowing Him personally because our God is a personal God who can be known--you cannot know truth by following a rigid set of dos and don'ts.  A book may be true, but only the Bible is truth and truth transforms the soul.  Jesus said in John 17:17 that "[God's] Word is truth."  "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, NIV).

Jesus said He was the personification of truth itself and he who is of the truth hears Him, who came to bear witness of the truth (cf. John 18:37).  This implies that we can know the truth and have a relationship with it because it is embodied in a personality.  The more we know Jesus, the more we know the truth who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Paul said in Eph. 4:21 that the truth is in Jesus!  Another theologian has said quite interestingly that without the way there is no going, without the truth there is no knowing, and without the life, there is no living.   We could know nothing if  not for Jesus telling us what the truth was and that He was truth--everything would be relative without an absolute standard to judge by, and everything would be up for grabs.  In antiquity might was right and Pilate scoffed at the idea of there being a universal truth that was valid everywhere, even where Rome wasn't in rule.

Today people of the postmodern persuasion are convinced that all truth is relative:  One prof opened his class by saying, "You can know nothing for certain!"  A quick-witted student asked him, "Are you sure?"  He replied, "I am certain!"  In Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, he explores the absurdity of everything being relative in the absence of objective truth based on God.  The very statement "All truth is relative" becomes relative in itself and of no truth value!  Something must be certain or we could know nothing and that is where they see themselves--as knowing nothing for certain--leading to absurdity.  Academia brainwashes and indoctrinates today's students into buying into this balderdash. What people are wont to say nowadays is that something may indeed be true for you but not for them--denying any objective truth that is true no matter what.  People today are not concerned with truth, but only with what is practical and works --Christianity works because it's true, it isn't true because it works, pragmatism is only concerned with successful results.

Note that there are several ways to arrive at truth, but all require the acceptance of some preconceived idea or presupposition we cannot prove or disprove;  there is no such thing as total objectivity outside of God's province.  All knowledge of the truth begins with faith. Augustine said, "I believe in order to understand."  Sir Francis Bacon and John Locke are considered the fathers of modern empiricism or science, the scientific method of research: Experiment, controls and variables, and depending upon repetition and measurement; however, unfortunately, science today has become scientism and people are skeptical of things not verifiable scientifically--when one makes scientific-like statements outside the domain of science, such as a philosophical or religious one, that is scientism (i.e., Carl Sagan saying that the cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be). Science cannot make value judgments--it can tell us the know-how but not the know-why nor philosophy of something.  For instance, whether miracles are possible is not a scientific question, but a philosophical and religious one and depends ultimately on whether there is a God and the reliability of the sources and documentation.  Philosophy or reasoning and speculation from axioms or maxims (self-evident truth) to arrive at a Supreme Good, for example, as the Greeks did. History is another source of truth but it is not repeatable, and therefore must be verified by other means, such as the reliability of the documentation or witnesses' credibility and veracity.  One can only ask whether the records are historically trustworthy. Many things that would be accepted in a court of law as true are not verifiable by scientific method, but by eye-witnesses and credible sources. Science cannot prohibit miracles, for instance, as false, because they lie outside its domain and it is like measuring radioactivity with a voltage meter.  Logic (this is the relationship between two statements which can be either valid or invalid, while the statements are either true or false--to get a valid and true conclusion, you must have a true premise), known also as the "analytical method" of the Enlightenment--we have both inductive and deductive reasoning, going either from particular to universal or from universal to particular respectively. Aristotle formulated the first laws of logic as we know them and named one syllogism or going from major premise to minor premise, to conclusion. The preferred way to arrive at truth is to accept what is revealed propositionally in Scripture (Theology, queen of the sciences) as the infallible, inerrant Word of God and go from there in faith. The Bible is full of logical statements and Jesus is the Logos or the logic. Cosmos means order and is the opposite of chaos, in which science would be impossible and it is the enemy of learning.  We can conceive of something logical that doesn't exist like a magic dragon, but in reality, all that exists must be logical or intelligible--that is why science was born of Christianity and not the Maya or illusion (the concept of the universe) of Eastern thought or faith. Science has its limits and has no right making claims against the supernatural because you cannot put God in a test tube under laboratory conditions, as it were.

The study of the determination of truth and knowledge is known as epistemology.  The rules of evidence always apply--whenever one makes an assertion, and anyone can allege something, he must come up with evidence to be credible (for instance Muslims claim our Bible is corrupt without having any evidence and so it is not a valid truth claim).  There is a truth known as the correspondence theory of truth or Truth with a capital T that reflects statements that correspond to the objective, real and logical world.  The Postmodernist denies this kind of truth and this is called anti-realism--or that there is no "real world" out there to believe in. They insist everyone has their own reality and subjective understanding of reality and there can be no standards to fall back to and set the objective standard of absolute truth. This kind of logic is merely nonsensical and leads to an academic gridlock. whereby nothing can ever be ascertained.


What they are saying is that truth is whatever they agree on or reach a consensus on, or whatever they can get away with saying; consequently and generally, the only truths that aren't real are those relating to the Christian worldview in particular; however, their truths are absolute.  One might refute their thinking by merely asserting that rape is always wrong under all circumstances and should be illegal as a consequence.  If there is one absolute truth, there follows that others most likely exist and that absolute truth does exist.  However, if there is no God one could reason that no one has the right to claim universal truth and this is where they are coming from--they don't want to believe in God because it interferes with their sexual (among other) mores.

By definition, truth is exclusive or it's not truth and biblically it's what God decrees and agrees with--He alone delimits and defines truth!  John Lock attempted to limit it to what corresponds to reality in the Correspondence Theory of Truth.  No matter how we look at it, no one has a monopoly on truth except the personification of truth itself--Jesus.  A word of wisdom from Thomas a Kempis is in order:  Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, with the Way there is no going, without the Truth, there is no knowing, and without the Life, there is no living!

And in conclusion, truth is whatever God says is true and comes from Him--we appeal to the Almighty.  We alone have faith in the God of truth!  We don't need all the answers if we know the Answerer!  Even moral values are more like a mathematical equation in being set up by a Superior Mind who reckons in good faith, fair play, honesty, courage, good conduct, meaning, purpose, goodness, faithfulness, truthfulness, purity, integrity, bravery, nobility, altruism, gracefulness, generosity, love, mercy, kindness, and even justice.  And so it would be logical to deduce God is a person who experiences these so-called divine and human values and standards that we share as being in His image and likeness to some degree, though in tainted and fallen or diminished form. Only God knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for example!  But those things which are revealed belong to us as a privilege and responsibility to share and disseminate.   Soli Deo Gloria!