What Is Truth?

"Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25, NIV, emphasis mine).

"[A]nd you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32, ESV, emphasis mine).

"... For this purpose I was born and for this purpose, I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice" (John 18:37, ESV, emphasis mine).

"Pilate said to him, 'What is truth?'" (John 18:38, ESV).

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..." (Proverbs 1:7, ESV).

"Without the way, there is no going; without the truth there is no knowing; without the life, there is no living." (Thomas a Kempis (Thomas von Kempen in German) medieval author of the classic Imitation of Christ, emphasis mine)

This is the famous question of the notorious, weak-willed, wishy-washy Pontius Pilate addressed to Jesus during one of his so-called trials. Of course, he wasn't interested in waiting around for an answer, but only in being cynical. To him Rome was truth, there was no universal truth that applied everywhere except Rome's truth, because "might made right." To him, there were just too many religions for one to have the gall or audacity to claim exclusivity. He is the example that the Bible defines non-Christians as those "who reject the truth" (cf. Romans 2:8).

But truth is knowable because Jesus claimed to be truth incarnate ("I am the truth"). It isn't all propositional, but something we can have a relationship with and get to know personally. There are statements that are true or false, and there are relationships between them that are either valid or invalid, according to Aristotelian logic. When you make conclusions, you've assumed something beforehand! Conclusions are only as valid as their premise or presuppositions. Logic just defines the relationships between statements or propositions assumed as true. 

The point is that no matter what conclusion you reach or what you claim to know, you have started somewhere with some proposition that you cannot prove. "Faith precedes reason" is the formula. This means all knowledge begins with faith and assuming something you cannot prove, according to Augustine and all truth is God's truth. And Aquinas added that all truth meets at the top. What this also means is that God is the God of truth and "no lie is of the truth"--Satan is the author of deceit and father of lies, and there is no truth in him.

The problem with evil is that it isn't the opposite of good, but infection and distortion of it. There is an element of truth (this is what makes it so enticing and alluring) and this element is in every false religion and cult--that's why they are so dangerous and appealing to people in need or with a vacuum to fill in their desperate lives. New Age people would say that if it feels good it is truth for you. And Postmodernists (and the only truths that are really relative are those relating to Christianity) and Postmodernism would say that it might be true for you, though not for someone else and that all truth is relative (relative to what?). For them the "truth is a "short-term contract." "

You can know nothing for certain," they say. And they are certain! Pragmatists, on the other hand, may posit: "It may work for you, but not for me (confusing something that works as something that's true)." They sincerely believe you cannot know whether something is true, but only whether it works and this is the true test of an idea. New Age thinkers go beyond that in urging you to listen to the "God within." We do have a right to our own opinions, but not our own truths. We must not fabricate our own truth! Being opinionated is no compliment if not based on truth.

When we stray from "absolute truth" and God as its source, all things are permissible according to Dostoevsky. Would anyone argue that rape or incest isn't wrong under all circumstances, at all times, and for all people [unless you are forced to do it]? They're never right! That's because it is an example of absolute truth that exists and we don't argue about it, but accept it as a universal standard, just as much as a mathematical table. We all have a sense of right and wrong, or sense of "ought" and things like fair play, good faith, truthfulness, sportsmanship, integrity, altruism, courage, honor, duty, and unselfishness. This is a sense and a sense implies a person or personality, not a thing; which implies a "Higher Mind and/or Sense" or God behind the cosmos that keeps things going so orderly.

We all appeal to an ultimate standard of behavior all the time, even when someone buds in line, steals a parking spot, or cheats at golf. Life would be chaos without some standard of decency to expose lewdness and without principles to live by. We don't just make up our own rules as we go along and we don't live and do according to what is right in our own eyes. Even in prison, convicts have a "code" and a conscience that if you steal their cigarettes you will pay dearly. Man is a "moral" creature in that he has an inner sense of right and wrong, even if he ignores it at his peril.

"Absolute truth" is true everywhere and all the time and applies to everyone. Objective truth is true regardless of whether we believe it or not. There is absolute, universal truth, but there is no absolute, universal belief. There is no belief that is regarded as true by everyone, and just because we don't believe something doesn't make it untrue. What people erroneously do is think that belief and truth are identical. And they are right in saying there is nothing that everyone universally believes in the way of religion, for instance, but principles of right and wrong apply to everyone. There is an invisible moral code we all appeal to and it is just as real as the laws of logic or a musical scale or math table.

In a court of law, your opinions don't matter as evidence, except as expert testimony if you are one; however, people will believe what they choose to believe and will always have prejudicial and irrational opinions. By and large, it only matters what is truth, not what is an opinion. It's just like in the TV show Dragnet, when Sgt. Friday said, "Just gimme the facts, ma'am!"

Truth is defined by God (it's "true truth," according to Francis Schaeffer), and this truth is what God says it is because He is the God of truth--i.e., "the only true God" (cf. John 17:2). Things we believe may be true, but God's Word is truth and the difference is that truth doesn't just inform or reform, but transforms and sanctifies (cf. John 17:17). It is so true despite the fact that "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (cf. Romans 1:25, ESV). As Paul Little has said, "Believing something doesn't make it true; refusing to believe it doesn't make it false." Don't equate belief with truth! The Bible is objectively true; true regardless of who says what or who told us! It is self-attesting, appealing to no one or nothing for verification of its truth but itself as the highest authority. Only Scripture can objectively be called "truth," since total objectivity doesn't exist--except with God!

In the final analysis, truth is what God decrees as truth--you cannot dispute God! (it has been wisely said). And truth is what conforms to God's divine nature and is immutable, not subject to our criticism or scrutiny--it is often too profound for us to fathom ("Canst thou by searching find out God?" Job is asked). You cannot label it, put it in a box, confine it, nor define it because it is infinite and the "finite cannot grasp the infinite" according to the Greek maxim of antiquity. Soli Deo Gloria!

Christian Worldview 101

Has Evolution Become A Religion?

Science has become the universal language and in the modernist worldview, it was said that science could answer all our problems and be the panacea to man's plight. Carl Sagan, 1981 recipient of the Humanist of the Year award, has announced that evolution has become a sort of religion.  Science, itself, is a universal language.  Evolution, itself, has become the faith of secular academia.  In China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government; while in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!  Even Darwin criticized himself (one chapter in his book was entitled, "Difficulties with the Theory").  The evolutionist always has the comeback:  "You must assume, that, somehow by faith, it happened (abiogenesis) or it was there (the primordial soup)!"

The Achilles' heel of evolution is the origin of life and man still hasn't been able to produce life in a mock primordial soup.  Darwin, himself, scoffed at the idea of spontaneous generation, and yet this is what evolution logically leads to.  Darwin had no idea that he was just giving justification for communism and social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest.  His main theory, the origin of species by means of natural selection, depends on the survival of the fittest, but he cannot posit any arrival of the fittest--where did life come from?  It is scientific fact that life only comes from life, unless you believe that the impossible happened and spontaneous generation or abiogenesis occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, though Louis Pasteur disproved the possibility in 1860.

The whole Secular Humanist worldview depends on evolution because they deny God and not only that, they are anti-God and are militant atheists, not letting any divine foot in the door of academia, which they see as pushing religion.  It is obvious that the complexity of life was no fluke of nature and reveals a grand Designer, who was engaged in His creation and not a bystander or just a first cause or unmoved mover.

Evolution depends upon a series of contingent events and an astronomical chance event--like believing a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a tornado going through a junkyard (even if the cosmos was filled with them)--it just won't happen, and this is called "junkyard mentality."  According to Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of life occurring by chance is the same as a blind man solving Rubiks Cube (it would take 1.35 trillion years!), or of throwing a six on a die five million times in a row!  The laws of probability are against evolution. In the book The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle postulates that life could not have arisen by chance, period. In his own words, life couldn't have arisen by chance--it is pure faith based on no evidence.  They believe that we Christians believe in the impossible, but evolution is impossible too, either way, one must take the step of faith and become a believer.

Now getting back to Darwin, himself; he said, that, if his theory were true it would be demonstrated in the fossil record--well no transitional forms have been found, but only fully formed species. Before you can have a limb, you must have a bad limb, and no missing links (and there should be millions, because there are 11 million species of life on earth).  Evolution posits that there was a primordial soup that had perfect conditions for life to form--but where did this soup come from?  A problem that Darwin couldn't have known about is that of DNA, or the metabolic motor that is necessary for life and can only be created by life--this begs the question, of where did the first DNA come from?  The only logical conclusion is that life was created since it couldn't have an infinite regress of life coming from life, ad infinitum.

The whole concept of evolution denies the scientific principle of entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which posits that things go from complex to simple or from order to disorder and chaos, not the other way around.  Things are not evolving for the better, but the worst!  We are running out of usable energy, though the total amount of energy is fixed.  Man is devolving, not evolving!  I've heard it said that in nursery school they say a princess kissing a frog to become a prince is a fairy tale; while in college it is science!

Why does academia embrace this theory dogmatically, and those who don't tow the line are ostracized and lose credibility? There is no academic freedom to explore the real evidence and alternate viewpoints and theories.  It is apparent that evidence to support evolution scientifically is hard to come by, and it is faith not supported by good science, and according to Dr. Karl Popper, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory at all by today's standards of science--yet it was first a working hypothesis, then it was championed as a theory, then finally, now it is touted as unquestioned, scientific fact.

The problem is that students in the schools actually believe science has disproved creation and that evolution has been proved! Everything eventually runs out of steam or energy, and the universe will someday fade away in heat death.  The whole theory rests on the premise that time plus chance plus space equals any possibility, or that given enough time anything can happen!  Do you believe that monkeys typing away for eternity could ever produce something intelligible?  Something that's impossible doesn't happen, no matter how much time is allotted. Evolution is unproven, regardless of what they say, and unprovable!  What it is is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith."  Students are brainwashed into acceptance, because creation science is not even taught in the public school system, but seen as a religion and a violation of the First Amendment.  One reason I propose for its prevalence in academia is that it grants a scientific basis for communism and socialism, and the university elite subscribes to these philosophies, and they must tow the party line.

They have no answer to the cosmos having a beginning or Big Bang if you will.  The Cambrian explosion is the Big Bang of evolution and it is evidence to the contrary because species are fully formed.  There is tremendous peer pressure and desire for tenure to keep on believing in an impossible scheme--this is the only alternative to accepting God as the Creator, and they don't want to go there at all.  The forbidden word to evolutionists is "purpose" or "design," because that implies a Designer or that the cosmos and life have meaning behind them--this concept, known as teleology is anathema to evolutionists and you might say is a dirty word.   But all evidence suggests the Anthropic Principle or that earth was perfectly designed for man.  One author has termed earth as the visited and privileged planet.

Either God created life or it evolved--there's no other possibility!  We have seen that evolution is an impossibility, but people would rather believe it than accept God, because it is convenient and suits their sexual mores.  It is just morally comfortable to accept the tenet of evolution and it takes a leap of faith and a devoted life of faith, as though it were a faith or religion itself, and it is.  It takes more faith, however, to believe in evolution without sufficient evidence, than to believe in God or suspend judgment completely.  Believing you're an animal ultimately leads to acting like one!   Soli Deo Gloria!

Epistemological Breakthrough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unfolding Of History...

"This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:27, NIV).
"LORD, I know that people's lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps" (Jer. 10:23, NIV).
"'...Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen'" (Isa. 14:24, NIV).
"The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples" (Ps. 33:10, NIV).
"If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us. But passion and party blind our eyes...." --Samuel Taylor Coleridge

There are no accidents of history which is dependent upon impersonal, non-existent forces, such as fortune, fate, or luck! Don't sing, "Que sera, sera, what will be, will be!" Providence is God's answer to happenstance!

History is a story by a grand Storyteller, the great Orchestrator of History itself, God, which means it has a direction, meaning, and a conclusion or consummation; we ignore it at our peril!


The ancients believed in a cyclical historical narrative, whereby history repeated itself; however, Mark Twain said that history doesn't repeat itself, it only rhymes! The only thing we learn from history, it is said, is that we don't learn from history; that is probably why Henry Ford proclaimed history as "bunk." The Bible is the final arbiter of truth and what is "bunk," though. The communist ideology justifies itself and its dialectic materialism by positing history as the judge. Some religions, on the other hand, see karma as the inevitable judge of mankind, from which we cannot escape.


Do nations that unjustly go to war, to wage unjust wars reap what they sow, is there bad karma for them? It seems like the good guys don't always win and justice comes out the loser if one observes history, yet God orchestrates all history, and history is simply "His story." We have to acknowledge that we don't always see what God is up to in His world, as He micromanages it to the minutiae--there is indeed not one maverick molecule out of His control.


Karl Marx said something interesting about history: The point is not to interpret it, but to change it! I believe one of the biggest problems we have in our nation is its lack of familiarity with American and even world history. If we don't learn some basic lessons, we are doomed to repeat history. The Bible teaches a linear approach to interpret history, that it doesn't go in cycles but is heading toward a climactic event or consummation (the Second Coming of Christ). Scientists deny any supernatural intervention in history, such as the Deluge, and this is called the uniformitarian view of history--this is because they want to make the earth out to be billions of years old and this view supports their old-earth hypothesis.


History can be summed up according to biblical interpretation: Creation, fall, redemption, judgment! History and time had a beginning at creation and Secular Humanists can't adjust their worldview to include this approach, but hold to an eternal universe (such a theory is untenable in view of scientific evidence of a Big Bang). The point is that, if there was a beginning (Big Bang), there had to be a Beginner or one who pulled the trigger! Nothing just happens by itself! We must learn the lessons of history, and Christianity is the only faith and worldview that is based on history and has evidence to back it up.


In the final analysis, we don't know the future, but we know who holds the future! This doctrine is sometimes referred to as Providence and we must learn to not second-guess God. Certainly, as Ben Franklin observed: "I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more I realize that God governs in the affairs of men." God has no back-up plan nor a Plan B, and His will cannot be frustrated by us, as we cannot thwart Him (cf. Job 42:2). 

History is something we really don't understand and cannot fathom, until after the fact, when we can see more objectively what God is doing in the affairs of men; therefore to conjecture about the future or to make prognostications is out of our realm of competency, since we don't have a crystal ball that works--it's God's dominion--we trust God for the future, and must realize that our future or (times) is in His hands (cf. Psalm 31:15).


In sum, consider the following verses (Psalm 22:28 (NIV); Job 36:23 (HCSB); and Daniel 4:35, NIV): "[F]or dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations," "Who has appointed His way for Him, and who has declared, 'You have done wrong'?" "...No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'" Soli Deo Gloria!

Ushering In The Kingdom

Many evangelicals think of geopolitical considerations concerning the faith as if the social gospel (actually a misnomer) or political reform were the Second Great Commission.  "Seek the prosperity of the city..." (cf. Jer. 29:7).  This a social mandate, not a social gospel.  We are its salt and light, not its savior.  America is a secular nation and not a Christian one, no matter how many believers make this land their home.  Always keep the main thing the main thing and save souls as Job One. 


We are not to stoop to the level of radical or fundamentalist Islam and institute Christian Shari'ah law, which forces everyone to live like a Christian, whether they are Christian or not.  Our nation established freedom from religion, as well as freedom of the exercise of religion, and no sect has the right to impose its views on the others--note that secular humanism and atheism are considered religions. We may have started out with our forefathers as a predominately Christian nation, but today it is highly multicultural and diverse ethnically and religiously.  We are the salt as preservatives of morality and to give meaning and enjoyment to life, and also as light to show the way and how people should live in spiritual darkness--not political darkness, but moral depravity and in need of salvation, as the Bible sanctions no specific or certain type of government or economy.


What is legal is not always moral or right and could be sin or evil, and what is illegal may be the moral thing to do in an act of civil disobedience to unjust laws.  The state may recognize gay marriage, for example, but that doesn't mean God recognizes it--it doesn't become right or moral by an act of governmental decree.  We cannot legislate morality, law is merely the majority vote that licks all others, according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, though Christians differ because they believe that God is the only Legislator and all law must comply with Him.    Christians should never cease to drive basic morality in society as salt and light, but be aware that there are gray and doubtful or questionable areas where people should be free to make their own personal choices.  Government is a "social contract" according to John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whether we want to be in it or not, or knowingly or not, according to contract laws.  The Bible sees government ordained by God to restrain evil in the world.


Jesus alone will usher in His kingdom and His kingdom is not of this world--we are not to get too comfortable in this life and become too much at home, for our conversation and real citizenship is in heaven!  Remember, at your homecoming you are not home yet!  Oliver Cromwell failed in making England a Christian nation.  The Puritans also attempted to make a Christian nation and John Calvin even tried his hand at it while mayor of Geneva--both utter failures and examples that the Great Commission is to spread the gospel and change lives, not to change the government--the Bible is a beacon of light unto salvation, not a social tool for government reform.


In summation, Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Colony wanted to advance the kingdom of Christ when he settled here, but he misunderstood the Great Commission and the doctrine of eschatology.  It is a well-known fact that the Salem witch hunts showed the failure of instituting the Christian faith and making the Bible itself the law of the land.  Jesus will bring about His kingdom in due time when the body is full and complete with all His lost sheep saved.   Soli Deo Gloria!  

Not Believing In God

"I think, therefore God is." (Rene Descartes, Father of Modern Rationalism)

Not believing in God doesn't make Him not exist and is not evidence that He doesn't exist: He exists whether one believes it or not. The Bible starts out: "In the beginning God...." It assumes God and makes no attempt at proof; however, we don't kiss our brains goodbye in believing, nor believe despite the evidence, but there is compelling and convincing evidence enough for one who wants to believe and is willing to do His will--man doesn't have intellectual problems, which he feigns as smokescreens and objects, but his problem is moral and a matter of surrender to God. 

The act of believing something doesn't make it true, and disbelieving something doesn't make it false. Man simply doesn't want to believe, though he can believe; he's in a state of moral rebellion and defiance against God (Jer. 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?"). Answer this: If there were no God, would men be angry at Him?


The fool has said in his heart that he doesn't believe in God per Psalm 14:1. Jesus said some are "slow of heart to believe," (cf. Luke 24:25).   Note that he has a problem in his heart or will; it's not really an intellectual thing, for all his doubts could be answered and he'd still refuse to believe. To address the issue one must ascertain what God he is referring to (the Judaeo-Christian one?) or is it some generic deity or default God? What if someone said, "I don't believe in words!" You would think it was absurd because he was using words to say it. "In the beginning was the Word: Words make up thoughts and thoughts come from a thinker or a mind and the higher the thought the higher the mind--eventually we face the Ultimate Mind or the Supreme Thinker of the cosmos.


If there was no Higher Mind, there would be no thoughts, and all ideas would merely be random atomic reactions without rhyme or reason and helter-skelter. We know that the cosmos appears to be one gigantic mathematical equation according to astronomers. There are purpose and order to it, or you could call it teleological. If there were no minds, there would be no thoughts and we couldn't use thought to disprove God's existence and couldn't even trust thought--without God, life makes no sense, and everything reasonable is up for grabs.


I make no exhaustive attempt to rationalize God, as it were, but to show the fallacy of such denial and its logical conclusion--there's no purpose in anything and everything is meaningless. Fools and infidels are seldom convinced by argument; however, God has set eternity in the hearts of man (cf. Eccl. 3:11) and every culture and tribe or people group recognizes some form of divinity or deity--how did this happen, if not based in truth? The deepest and most profound inquiry one can make is whether there is a God and how this affects him. What do we owe God in return for all His mercy, grace, and goodness?


If there is no God, where did this idea come from, known as ontological proof, and if there is no morality or standards of right and wrong, where did we get this from? There seems to be some person behind the universe who we can relate to that is the source of noble and good behavior, such as courage, integrity, good faith, altruism, love, unselfishness, fair play, truthfulness, and honesty, etc. Surely, there is a personality behind everything that cares a lot about right and wrong, just as if they were scientific or mathematical laws.


Everyone believes in and worships something (we are referred to as Homo religiosis and Homo divinus, religious beings or divine). We worship what we admire and if we don't worship God, we will find something or someone to worship. To deny that you worship something is to say you worship yourself, and some megalomaniacs do. Humanism is the philosophy of deifying and exalting man, and dethroning God--it is religion minus God. It implies man is the measure of all things and, we start with man and understand the cosmos, not with God; however, Scripture says, "In the beginning God...."


Instead, we begin with God and explain everything. You cannot come to a clear and coherent understanding of reality and metaphysics without accepting a Higher Being and someone who is transcendent or out there removed from creation and controlling, guiding, and preserving it. You can tell a lot about a person by knowing what he admires; if not God, there must be something to fill the void and vacuum created, that can only be satisfied with a personal relationship and fellowship with the Lord. Augustine said our hearts are restless till they find rest in God. 

Pascal said there is a "God-shaped vacuum only God can fill!" The only way to have fulfillment in life is to know God because this is our purpose and meaning in life: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" (The Westminster Shorter Catechism). We are made for God and exist for His purpose; He doesn't exist for ours.


When someone says he doesn't believe in God, he is acknowledging God in his assertion: Who said there was a God? How did you find that out? Like one saying he doesn't believe in words saying them or in the air while breathing it! Where does he reckon he came from, why is he here, and where is he going? The answers to life's fundamental questions cannot be satisfactorily answered apart from personal knowledge of God. God, according to AA, is any Higher Power (not necessarily a supernatural one), and everyone has one! We are responsible to obey what we know, and if we do, God will show us more. 

God isn't obligated to prove Himself to anyone; He owes no one anything and has given sufficient evidence, for all creation has His imprint and fingerprint in DNA, the missing link of intelligence. Why can't man produce life? The missing link is intelligence and God has a monopoly on it--His knowledge is perfect. If we made life someday in a petri dish or test tube, it would only prove that it must be by intelligence and design. The design of the cosmos only proves a Designer and all the order seen everywhere only proves an Orderer!


The beginning or the Big Bang only proves a Beginner! The scientific theory of an eternal universe is untenable. Who got the ball rolling and fired the shot of the Big Bang? As the Greeks called God, the unmoved mover or first cause. Paul said on Mars Hill in Acts 17:29, ESV: "... In Him, we live and move and have our being...." He is the necessary one to exist, while nothing else needs to exist for reality to exist. We aren't necessary, the earth isn't necessary, but God is because for something to exist there must be something necessary to exist or nothing would exist and it would be that nothing was necessary or had a cause. The law of causality or of cause and effect says all effects must have a cause, and everything that begins to exist has a cause; God isn't an "effect" and didn't begin to exist, being eternal, and therefore has no cause outside Himself. The Big Bang had a beginning and therefore had a cause to bring it about.


Atheism is a bankrupt religion (and it was declared a religion by a federal court), and it cannot be defended, it raises more questions than it answers since logicians will tell you that you cannot prove a universal negative, because you'd have to be everywhere at the same time (like proving there are no little green men), and only God could do this--so it's logically absurd and a contradiction. The only motive for being an atheist (cf. Psalm 10:4) is because one doesn't want to be responsible and accountable to a God, living without a Lawgiver, Judge, and Ruler to control his destiny. They believe they are only animals because they want to act like animals! Soli Deo Gloria!

A Sense Of Oughtness

"Love must be sincere.  Hate what is evil; cling to what is good"  (Rom. 12:9, NIV).
"Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good"  (Romans 12:21, ESV). 




We are all born with an innate conscience capable of discerning right from wrong and applying abstract laws and rules to specific and concrete situations.  Romans 2:15 says our conscience either excuses or accuses us:  We all know God's law (natural law) but we flaunt it!  Knowing better we still do wrong:  "I know the better things and I approve them, and I follow the worst" (Ovid, Roman poet). Paul said, "...Who will deliver me from the body of this death?"(Rom. 7:24).   "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing"  (Rom. 7:10, ESV).  None of us satisfies or fulfills our own expectations and standards--we all stand self-condemned.  There are as many systems of ethics as there are worldviews, but basically, the Christian one assumes man is not basically good, but inherently evil and needs revelation and salvation from God to be convicted of right and wrong.



There is no such thing as perfectionism, or reaching a state of sinless perfection (cf. Prov. 20:9; Ps. 119:96). We all do things that we should've known better not to do!  The law of Moses was given to convict us and show we cannot meet God's standards of righteousness, not to be a code of conduct to live by and earn salvation by merit.  The requisite for salvation is to realize you cannot save yourself by good behavior and you need a Savior because of your sin, that you have fallen short of God's glory and standard.




Ethics with a capital E is nebulous for those who deny God--they dodge the no-absolute-truth thesis: "The absurd is, sin without God," said Albert Camus.  Dostoevsky said that without God all things are permissible!  Immanuel Kant said that God is necessary for ethics to be possible.  The Nazis justified themselves socially and didn't think we had the right to try them for war crimes, but the allies appealed to "natural law."  In academia, they teach you that ethics is about the good press (spin) and not getting caught!   Social studies and psychology teach you to have good reasons for what you do and to have responsible decision making, as you make your own choices in life.



In antiquity, might made right and there was no universal ethic, and that is why Pilate asked, "What is truth?"  Jesus claimed to be the epitome or embodiment of truth and also the way and the life to live. Postmodernists dodge the ethics issue, by saying there is no absolute truth and it is a nebulous thing to have one standard for everyone, as it evolves with society and situation (ethics).  In other words, ethics are only relative!  Today most students judge the usefulness of an idea, by its consequences or results, not its truth value--is it practical?   Christians are urged to "overcome evil with good," and as the summation of ethics:  "Follow Me [Christ]!" We are held to a higher standard and are the witness of Christ in the world as lights in the darkness and salt to preserve it and add flavor.

Christianity is not a list of dos and don'ts, nor a system of ethics; it's a living relationship of knowing a personal God.  Ethics is the application of right doctrine and living it out by faith as our duty to God and man (cf. Gal. 5:6, NIV, which says:  "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.").  The faith you have is the faith you show!  The law is written in all men:  "The work of the law written in their heart, their conscience"  (cf. Romans 2:15).  People try to make up their own voluntary initiatives or codes of conduct to live by, but they are always ones they think they have kept or can.  Christian ethics is based upon the exemplary, unequaled personality of Christ as the one to emulate, and He has no flaws--what a standard!



We all need a moral compass, and Humanists insist that they can have ethics without God, but Humanism is precisely that: Being as good as possible without God--which is a definition of evil. New age people will tell you to listen to the inner voice and to be in touch with yourself, and tolerance is the key, so don't be judgmental; if it feels like the truth to you, it is!  the codes of conduct range from the Golden Rule (cf. Matt. 7:12), to the Brazen Rule of reciprocity or tit for tat, to the Silver Rule of not treating others the way you don't want to be treated--a negative Golden Rule, to the Iron Rule of treating others as a bully, where might makes right, and the survival of the fittest or social Darwinism is the rule.  Most nonbelievers design their own ethics and don't adhere to an absolute standard of morality.  Something they can comply with to their standards.



In the final analysis, the only true morality or ethics is when the motive, as well as the end result or goal, is pure and good: the means to the ends must be right, because the means do not justify the ends; and utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number, is another evil that has justified the murder of millions in communist countries.  The premise that secular worldviews have is that man is basically good and can redeem himself, or lift himself up by his own bootstraps.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Knowledge Power?

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


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



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


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



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


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


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


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


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

Transcendent Truth...

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

NB: TRANSCENDENT TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE AND OBJECTIVE, NOT DEPENDING UPON OPINION OR POPULARITY, TRUE WHETHER BELIEVED OR NOT.


Morality is based upon transcendent truth and is not subject to debate.--it's not based on private opinion or feelings, but on God's inner law that we all have in our conscience. God's truth is objective truth and is true regardless of whether believed or not! All the foundations of society come apart by destroying the basis of truth based upon the facts, whether they like them or not, and whether they support their worldview and opinions or not. In denying truth, like Oliver Wendel Holmes did, "law is the majority vote that can lick all others--[how bleak an outlook!]."

Christians believe in a supreme entity of truth that is personified or incarnated in Christ as its exemplar. All we need to know is in Him and revealed by knowing Him. Every academic discipline is fulfilled in Him. Some things are true, but not truth; all truth meets at the top and is God's truth, which has the almighty power to transform, not just inform. In our day politics is leaning toward pragmatism, in which belief system truth is irrelevant and is not the test of an idea--whether it works is the litmus test (known as pragmatism)! Does it work for you? New Age believers think truth is whatever they "feel" is right for them. Postmodernism denies any Truth with a capital T and sees it all as relevant--that may be true for you, but not for me!

Is is any wonder that the governmental spin disregards truth and that it's absolute? Now we have to deal the post-factual world and the alternative fact, which is something related to an opinion, not substantiated--unfounded allegations and truth claims. When you destroy the validity of truth, as Pilate cynically asked Jesus: "What is truth?" you destroy the very foundation of all knowledge. We have nothing to have agreement on and cannot even compromise because we cannot agree as to what the facts are and how to arrive at truth.

Science is only one way to ascertain truth, divine revelation is another; for the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. It is fallacious to believe that only religious people have taken a leap of faith; all worldviews start with some assertion they cannot prove--even nihilists have faith and scientists believe irrationally in science and have made a religion out of it. Faith in science is still faith--it's not a matter of faith versus reason, then, but faith in which set of presuppositions you wish to make your starting point and an axis of learning or foundation.

It is a sad commentary on our culture that truth is being filtered and downgraded to such ideas as "fake news." If the facts don't fit their opinions they automatically reject them as fake news. We don't accept or reject evidence according to whim or our worldview but make our opinions up according to the facts. Some facts may seem like a hard pill to swallow, but we must align our faith and worldview according to reality, and not a parallel universe in a fact-free bubble or reality.

Journalists must keep each other honest and seek the truth behind the story--just the facts without putting a spin on it like an administration does for damage control. The truth will eventually be known so why not be on the side of the truth? You can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time, they say!

There are two kinds of law: natural law or God's law (according to His nature) and legal positivism (that which the powers that be make up as they go along and force on the masses). Just because some power elites decide to make a law and enforce it doesn't make it right in God's eyes. Some laws are unjust and Christians ought to oppose them with civil disobedience because they violate transcendent law from God, which we all know in our conscience.

The ancient Greeks sought for truth, beauty, and goodness. You can make any truth claim you desire; however, it must be substantiated to be true. Many conclusions are possible from truth claims and conclusions are not true or false, but valid or invalid, depending upon the line of reasoning and the premise or foundation facts. Truth is not elusive, but God-given and we can personally know it by virtue of an encounter with the living God, via believing in Jesus and enjoying that relationship.
Since Jesus claimed to be "the Way," He is the gateway and starting point in our pilgrimage seeking truth--it all begins by knowing Him!
Soli Deo Gloria!