Scientism is defined as the act of harnessing science for unscientific endeavors or academic disciplines. It's when one thinks the only reliable truth is from science.
Some secularist scientists believe all our problems can be scientifically resolved and that science has the answers to our dilemmas if given enough time. Excuse me: Science does not have all the answers! Scientism, by definition, is when you make statements that science has no right to make, or are out of its domain or sphere of knowledge. One notable example is humanist astronomer Carl Sagan saying that "the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be!" This is a metaphysical statement that scientists have no authority to answer.
History, by its very nature, is nonrepeatable, and no one was there at creation or the Big Bang so we have no eyewitnesses to verify the evidence. It's speculation, not science--history is not science, because you need to be able to control variables and have laboratory conditions, as well as repeatability and measurability.
Science is not a source of ethical, metaphysical, or philosophical truth. This is why evolution is out of its realm of knowledge--no one saw life begin and all attempts at creating life in the lab have failed. There is no final conflict between science and the Bible, in fact, it was Christianity that made science possible by promoting an orderly and law-abiding cosmos. The first scientists, such as Sir Francis Bacon, were Christians, and you don't have to deny your faith to be a good scientist--the majority of astronomers today are not atheists at all. Galileo and Copernicus were Christians and they were among the earliest of scientists.
Eastern religions never would've given birth to science, since they believe reality is an illusion called Maya. Christians affirm a Lawgiver, orderly and predictable laws and consequences for violation. Christians believe all truth is God's truth, and that includes scientific truth, and that it all meets at the top as Aquinas said. The Bible has never been proven to be in scientific error, and the scientific statements it does make are accurate: for instance, the water cycle was described long before we figured it out.
Scientism is when scientists hijack their views in the name of science to make philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical claims that it doesn't have any right to make. Several Nobel scientists have written a book called Cosmos, Bios & Theos, and have agreed that God is necessary to explain the complexities behind creation; we are not some fluke of nature!
To show the vanity of putting faith in science, the French Academy of Science published a brochure listing fifty-one "scientific facts" that controverted the Bible--today none of the so-called facts are believed! The Bible doesn't need correction, just faith in its self-attestation--if it appealed to some outside source for authority and legitimacy, then it couldn't be the Word of God, as it needed a higher authority for verification. What we say is that you don't have to defend a caged lion, it will take care of itself--and so the Bible can prove itself, it just needs to be read or reread. When they ask you to prove it, you tell them, "No way! You prove it, just try reading it--it will prove itself!"
In sum, all science can do is discover the know-how and learn by the scientific method, whereas to find the know-why you need religion or philosophy--don't confuse the two domains! It is a sad commentary on our society that science has become a religion. Faith in science is still faith, and is no different than putting faith in God or religion--you just have different presuppositions as your starting point and all knowledge begins in faith. Soli Deo Gloria!
About Me
- Karl Broberg
- I am a born-again Christian, who is Reformed, but also charismatic, spiritually speaking. (I do not speak in tongues, but I believe glossalalia is a bona fide gift not given to all, and not as great as prophecy, for example.) I have several years of college education but only completed a two-year degree. I was raised Lutheran and confirmed, but I didn't "find Christ" until I was in the Army and responded to a Billy Graham crusade in 1973. I was mentored or discipled by the Navigators in the army and upon discharge joined several evangelical, Bible-teaching churches. I was baptized as an infant, but believe in believer baptism, of which I was a partaker after my conversion experience. I believe in the "5 Onlys" of the reformation: sola fide (faith alone); sola Scriptura (Scripture alone); soli Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (to God alone be the glory). I affirm TULIP as defended in the Reformation.. I affirm most of The Westminster Confession of Faith, especially pertaining to Providence.
Monday, April 15, 2019
A Primer On Epistemology
"The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, NIV).
"Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is true." (unknown).
"Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe).
"We have found all the questions, now let's find the answers." (G. K. Chesterton).
"... and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hos. 4:14, ESV).
"Therefore my people go into exile for lack of knowledge..." (Isaiah 5:13, ESV).
NOTE THIS PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOM: ALL KNOWLEDGE BEGINS IN FAITH (FAITH PRECEDES REASON!). REMEMBER: A CHRISTIAN WITH FAITH HAS NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THE FACTS AND SCRUTINY.
They were "always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:7)! That's probably why Socrates said that you must "admit your ignorance" to begin to learn. Sophomores in college think they know so much, but they have only begun to learn. Education is going from an unconscious to a conscious awareness of one's ignorance. Augustine said that he believes in order to understand; indeed faith comes before reason! We all have faith, whether in God, mankind, nature, science, logic, or religion, because everyone starts out with some presupposition they cannot prove. Faith in science is not inherently superior knowledge--it's still faith.
People erroneously have blind faith that science has disproved creationism or Christianity, and this is dangerous to all of us. We erroneously assume that believing something makes it true and not believing something makes it false; there is no universal belief, but there is universal truth. We must always be ready to back up our allegations and assertions with facts.
By the way, science is becoming "scientism," thinking it is the only true source of truth, and consequently, it's becoming a religion according to Carl Sagan, a professor at Cornell Univ. in astronomy. Science is not meant to answer philosophical, historical, legal, ethical, or religious issues, but restrict itself to the logical, observable, measurable, and repeatable. The scientific method, as invented by Sir Francis Bacon, is only one way to find truth. You can't have your minds made up so that you don't want to be confused with the facts! If you are a know-it-all that is unwilling to admit you could be wrong, you will never know the truth of the matter at hand.
There are facts that have evidence and can be proved by various means, then there are allegations and accusations that are unsubstantiated. When someone disseminates unsubstantiated so-called facts, it is slander, not news! Journalists know what sources are and their credibility factors. Unreliable sources are ignored and so are those that have lost credibility. Anonymous "leaks" are not good sources to publish as gospel truth and are fake news services that are the tabloids of the internet and unworthy, unreliable sources.
We don't have faith in faith for its own sake, but the object of our faith makes all the difference. We must be willing to admit we could be wrong to find the truth and also be willing to go wherever the evidence may lead, no matter how unpalatable. Sometimes truth is something we couldn't have guessed and is stranger than fiction--who wouldn't have thought the Godhead or Deity was triune. In examining the evidence we fit the theory to match the facts, we don't fit the facts to fit our theory! In short, there is Truth with a capital T and all truth meets at the top because it's God's truth according to Augustine and Aquinas. Remember that Jesus announced: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." (cf. John 14:).
Jesus, being the incarnation of truth itself proves we can know it and that it doesn't change--truth is timeless and always relevant. Truth is nonnegotiable and isn't a short-term contract and we have a right to our own opinions, but not our own truth or fact (there are no "alternative facts" as Kellyanne Conway and Trump say). We all have the right to our own opinion but not to fabricate our own facts. The thing about truth is that Jesus promised us we'd find it if we searched for it with the right attitude. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (cf. John 8:32). Jesus also said that if we are willing to do His will we shall know whether it is of God (cf. John 7:17).
Unbelievers are those who "reject the truth" (cf. Rom. 2:8) and repentance will be granted to some that they may "come to a knowledge of the truth." A sign of a true believer is that he is thirsty for and loves the truth: "... because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess. 1:10, ESV) they were judged and condemned.
Pseudo faith: Some people would say something is true because it works for them or feels right, these are fallacious presuppositions; John Dewey actually thought you couldn't evaluate the truth of an idea, only its usefulness (if it works!); the biggest misunderstanding is that all truth is relative and this would have to be a relative statement, making it meaningless! Ever since Pilate asked Jesus what truth is man has wondered if there is some absolute, universal truth for everyone everywhere--in antiquity "might made right!" There is truth in Christ who came to "bear witness of the truth" (cf. John 18:37). We must avoid the fallacious assertion that something may be true for one person, but not another and that everyone has their own truths that are only relative--we don't the right to fabricate our own truths! The Bible is truth and has the power to change or transform (cf. John 17:17) lives by virtue of that power.
In sum, Jesus said (cf. John 18:37) that everyone who is of the truth hears His voice--His sheep hear and recognize His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). In the final analysis, we need to be workers approved by God, who are "rightly handling the Word of truth" per 2 Tim. 2:15. Caveat: Beware of academia teaching the so-called theory of evolution as unquestioned scientific fact, when it's only a time-honored scientific tenet of faith!
"The Christian position is not that the truth is unknowable or that we are confused; it is that truth is knowable and we have rebelled," according to David Noebel. In application consider George Lucas' faith: "The conclusion that I've come to is that all religions are true." This is nonsensical and has no truth value, period; I rest my case! Soli Deo Gloria!
"Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is true." (unknown).
"Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe).
"We have found all the questions, now let's find the answers." (G. K. Chesterton).
"... and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hos. 4:14, ESV).
"Therefore my people go into exile for lack of knowledge..." (Isaiah 5:13, ESV).
NOTE THIS PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOM: ALL KNOWLEDGE BEGINS IN FAITH (FAITH PRECEDES REASON!). REMEMBER: A CHRISTIAN WITH FAITH HAS NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THE FACTS AND SCRUTINY.
They were "always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:7)! That's probably why Socrates said that you must "admit your ignorance" to begin to learn. Sophomores in college think they know so much, but they have only begun to learn. Education is going from an unconscious to a conscious awareness of one's ignorance. Augustine said that he believes in order to understand; indeed faith comes before reason! We all have faith, whether in God, mankind, nature, science, logic, or religion, because everyone starts out with some presupposition they cannot prove. Faith in science is not inherently superior knowledge--it's still faith.
People erroneously have blind faith that science has disproved creationism or Christianity, and this is dangerous to all of us. We erroneously assume that believing something makes it true and not believing something makes it false; there is no universal belief, but there is universal truth. We must always be ready to back up our allegations and assertions with facts.
By the way, science is becoming "scientism," thinking it is the only true source of truth, and consequently, it's becoming a religion according to Carl Sagan, a professor at Cornell Univ. in astronomy. Science is not meant to answer philosophical, historical, legal, ethical, or religious issues, but restrict itself to the logical, observable, measurable, and repeatable. The scientific method, as invented by Sir Francis Bacon, is only one way to find truth. You can't have your minds made up so that you don't want to be confused with the facts! If you are a know-it-all that is unwilling to admit you could be wrong, you will never know the truth of the matter at hand.
There are facts that have evidence and can be proved by various means, then there are allegations and accusations that are unsubstantiated. When someone disseminates unsubstantiated so-called facts, it is slander, not news! Journalists know what sources are and their credibility factors. Unreliable sources are ignored and so are those that have lost credibility. Anonymous "leaks" are not good sources to publish as gospel truth and are fake news services that are the tabloids of the internet and unworthy, unreliable sources.
We don't have faith in faith for its own sake, but the object of our faith makes all the difference. We must be willing to admit we could be wrong to find the truth and also be willing to go wherever the evidence may lead, no matter how unpalatable. Sometimes truth is something we couldn't have guessed and is stranger than fiction--who wouldn't have thought the Godhead or Deity was triune. In examining the evidence we fit the theory to match the facts, we don't fit the facts to fit our theory! In short, there is Truth with a capital T and all truth meets at the top because it's God's truth according to Augustine and Aquinas. Remember that Jesus announced: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." (cf. John 14:).
Jesus, being the incarnation of truth itself proves we can know it and that it doesn't change--truth is timeless and always relevant. Truth is nonnegotiable and isn't a short-term contract and we have a right to our own opinions, but not our own truth or fact (there are no "alternative facts" as Kellyanne Conway and Trump say). We all have the right to our own opinion but not to fabricate our own facts. The thing about truth is that Jesus promised us we'd find it if we searched for it with the right attitude. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (cf. John 8:32). Jesus also said that if we are willing to do His will we shall know whether it is of God (cf. John 7:17).
Unbelievers are those who "reject the truth" (cf. Rom. 2:8) and repentance will be granted to some that they may "come to a knowledge of the truth." A sign of a true believer is that he is thirsty for and loves the truth: "... because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess. 1:10, ESV) they were judged and condemned.
Pseudo faith: Some people would say something is true because it works for them or feels right, these are fallacious presuppositions; John Dewey actually thought you couldn't evaluate the truth of an idea, only its usefulness (if it works!); the biggest misunderstanding is that all truth is relative and this would have to be a relative statement, making it meaningless! Ever since Pilate asked Jesus what truth is man has wondered if there is some absolute, universal truth for everyone everywhere--in antiquity "might made right!" There is truth in Christ who came to "bear witness of the truth" (cf. John 18:37). We must avoid the fallacious assertion that something may be true for one person, but not another and that everyone has their own truths that are only relative--we don't the right to fabricate our own truths! The Bible is truth and has the power to change or transform (cf. John 17:17) lives by virtue of that power.
In sum, Jesus said (cf. John 18:37) that everyone who is of the truth hears His voice--His sheep hear and recognize His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). In the final analysis, we need to be workers approved by God, who are "rightly handling the Word of truth" per 2 Tim. 2:15. Caveat: Beware of academia teaching the so-called theory of evolution as unquestioned scientific fact, when it's only a time-honored scientific tenet of faith!
"The Christian position is not that the truth is unknowable or that we are confused; it is that truth is knowable and we have rebelled," according to David Noebel. In application consider George Lucas' faith: "The conclusion that I've come to is that all religions are true." This is nonsensical and has no truth value, period; I rest my case! Soli Deo Gloria!
What Good Is History?
"Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred..." (1 Chron. 12:32, NASB).
"What experience and history teach is this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of History).
We must realize that history is God's redemption story told in real time and God involves itself in history that is called interventionism and he is in control of history as he orchestrates it to the very detail determining the boundaries of the nations in the rise and fall kings. History goes in a direction that is not circular but linear it is headed towards a culmination and a climax when Christ comes and it can be interpreted we must learn from history. The Bible says history can repeat itself.
It does in a sense rhyme it comes back in different ways to learn and teach us new lessons and we don't learn them. Like what happens in Germany could happen here we must realize that we are not above being judged by God. We must hope that history has a turning point and we can change directions we can still redeem ourselves and reclaim ourselves for God's sake in the world and be a light to the world as we once were as America. We can find meaning and history and learn our lessons even to apply to a person alive not just a story and it's not meant to entertain or be entertaining but to teach us wisdom and make us realize that God is in control of history it is his story.
Henry Ford said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world." Businessmen have little use for academic subjects since their line of work is largely practical and commonsensical. It matters little whether Ford knew about the Civil War, except that he mistakenly named one of his cars the Lincoln! (I'll say tongue in cheek!) It has been said (by Georg W. F. Hegel, et al.) that the one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from it! Christianity is a religion of historical significance and is based on history and is dependent upon it as God's redemptive narrative that is headed in a direction at the culmination of Christ's Second Coming and Judgment Day to end all history.
Some erroneous views of history include uniformitarianism (God doesn't intervene miraculously, such as in the Deluge) and cyclical conceptions or views, whereby it's repeated in cycles---we hold it's going in a direction towards a consummation or is linear in conception. History is not the judge, as Communists believe, but a lesson to be studied and learned. We're not doomed to repeat our mistakes! We dare not discard our common heritage and legacy! Why? Our men in uniform have given the ultimate sacrifice to secure a place in the world's stage of nations. Marx thought the point of history was to change it, not just study it!
However, the world is not as simple as a business transaction or the bottom line--diplomacy is a skill to be sought out and valued. We have a heritage of relationships in our nation with other nations that have taken decades, and many administrations to mold. To throw away and start from scratch every administration would be ill-advised, as well as disastrous. To be specific, we have made treaties and trade pacts that need to be honored, to keep the good faith and integrity of our nation intact. The president really has no right to start from scratch and issue all new treaties unilaterally, just because he disagrees with them. The honorable thing for one president to do is to honor the commitments made by his predecessors. We are finding out too late that George Washington may have been right to warn us of foreign entanglements and treaties, and even of political parties, that tend to divide.
The point of continuity in our foreign policy is to keep credibility and our friends from becoming our competitors and potential enemies or even adversaries by virtue of their alliances. What they say is that a friend of our enemy is our enemy! Don't even flirt with danger! Don't create the vacuum to make this possible! This is no time to be sucking up to our adversaries and trying to mold breakthrough relationships and alliances that are revolutionary and even upset the world order. It is vital that we recognize the world order and the balance of power in the world and not upset the apple cart. America doesn't have to remain the world's police, but we are without a doubt the leader of the free world and this comes with the territory. When America speaks the world listens!
What we have is a failure to learn from history: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," according to George Santayana. The U.S. is not a business venture run by corporate CEOs and is not immune to the lessons of history. Instead of making friends of our enemies, we seem to be making enemies of our allies in one sense of the word.
Be that as it may, I am mainly concerned that we don't dissolve treaties, and end up going to war because of a lack of foresight or wisdom through good counsel. Do we have to end up in war before we learn our lesson that diplomats and statesmen know something and that it's not all about the bottom line or the pulse of the people, as a populist president seems to think? Soli Deo Gloria!
Some erroneous views of history include uniformitarianism (God doesn't intervene miraculously, such as in the Deluge) and cyclical conceptions or views, whereby it's repeated in cycles---we hold it's going in a direction towards a consummation or is linear in conception. History is not the judge, as Communists believe, but a lesson to be studied and learned. We're not doomed to repeat our mistakes! We dare not discard our common heritage and legacy! Why? Our men in uniform have given the ultimate sacrifice to secure a place in the world's stage of nations. Marx thought the point of history was to change it, not just study it!
However, the world is not as simple as a business transaction or the bottom line--diplomacy is a skill to be sought out and valued. We have a heritage of relationships in our nation with other nations that have taken decades, and many administrations to mold. To throw away and start from scratch every administration would be ill-advised, as well as disastrous. To be specific, we have made treaties and trade pacts that need to be honored, to keep the good faith and integrity of our nation intact. The president really has no right to start from scratch and issue all new treaties unilaterally, just because he disagrees with them. The honorable thing for one president to do is to honor the commitments made by his predecessors. We are finding out too late that George Washington may have been right to warn us of foreign entanglements and treaties, and even of political parties, that tend to divide.
The point of continuity in our foreign policy is to keep credibility and our friends from becoming our competitors and potential enemies or even adversaries by virtue of their alliances. What they say is that a friend of our enemy is our enemy! Don't even flirt with danger! Don't create the vacuum to make this possible! This is no time to be sucking up to our adversaries and trying to mold breakthrough relationships and alliances that are revolutionary and even upset the world order. It is vital that we recognize the world order and the balance of power in the world and not upset the apple cart. America doesn't have to remain the world's police, but we are without a doubt the leader of the free world and this comes with the territory. When America speaks the world listens!
What we have is a failure to learn from history: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," according to George Santayana. The U.S. is not a business venture run by corporate CEOs and is not immune to the lessons of history. Instead of making friends of our enemies, we seem to be making enemies of our allies in one sense of the word.
Be that as it may, I am mainly concerned that we don't dissolve treaties, and end up going to war because of a lack of foresight or wisdom through good counsel. Do we have to end up in war before we learn our lesson that diplomats and statesmen know something and that it's not all about the bottom line or the pulse of the people, as a populist president seems to think? Soli Deo Gloria!
Is There A Social Gospel?
"When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law" (cf. Rom. 2:15, ESV).
We have been given the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, but is there a Great Cultural Mandate? Some refer to a social gospel, but this is a misnomer. Our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus, naturally, not to the government, and Jesus did say that His kingdom is not of this world--that He was no threat to Caesar. His kingdom is not of this world! What kind of social calling do we conclude from Scripture? Some Christians believe this society isn't worth saving, some believe politics can't change the human condition, some believe the Bible is not relevant to civil government, and some do believe we should secure and take back society for Christ or reclaim America for Christ! Is it our calling to save America?
You can get too involved in the politics of this world that you are getting nowhere spiritually and getting your eyes off Jesus, but there are evils in society that must be rooted out and the government is instituted to overcome evil, restrain it, and contain it. Look at some of the greatest social movements in history, such as ending the gladiator fights, ending slavery, ending child labor, and giving women their rights, are the result of Christian influence--so there is a place for Christians to get involved with a divine calling.
We also need Christian influence in the government, i.e., as elected officials and public servants influencing for the good as salt and light. Christ's kingdom is one of the hearts of men and is not visible, it will be set up visibly at His second advent and we will rule with Him in glory. But some Christians believe we should try to take over and impose our way of life on the infidel: making him behave or live in a Christian manner and standard. Christian law has been tried and failed several times in history: Calvin's Geneva; Bradford's Plymouth; Winthrop's Massachusetts' Bay Colony; Cromwell's England, among others. We frown upon Muslims saying that tomorrow belongs to Islam and when they set up Shariah law, they aren't recognizing the rights of minorities, i.e., Christians. How can we expect non-Christians to live like Christians? This is really Christian Shariah law (like blue laws, gambling restrictions, and prohibition).
The purpose of government is not to outlaw sin but basically to protect freedoms, protect property, punish crime, securing justice. We are to "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's" (cf. Matt. 22:21) for sure, and we are never told to eschew society, start a revolution, or join hands with the powers that be as partners in crime either. We don't have carte blanche to wreak havoc on the social order. If we lived in a communist nation, we are not to become involved in a subversive underground of resistance but be model citizens and fulfill our mission of being salt and light.
However, there does come a time when the government tells us to do something immoral or forbids the free exercise of our faith, then it's imperative to disobey in an act of defiance and civil disobedience. Here's the rub: "We must obey God rather than men" (cf. Acts 5:29; 4:19). This is amply demonstrated by Daniel refusing to pray to the statue and being thrown into the lion's den; he neither flaunted nor privatized his faith as a prime minister who was salt and light.
The Bible makes it clear that our primary mission is to change hearts through the gospel message, and hopefully, society will be revolutionized as a direct result. Paul didn't make it his mission to overthrow slavery, but with the spread of Christianity, its demise was certain as believers rejected it and had more influence--not forced change. We are not called to set up a theocratic government or experiment with a nation ruled by religious leaders. It was Christian influence that said we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--rights are conferred from God and recognized by the state.
However, the conclusion of the matter is that we represent Christ to the world as His hands, feet, heart, and voice and we have the power to make a difference by being that salt and light, which preserves and shows the way in the darkness. The church shouldn't get overly obsessed with turning stones into bread or mission work unless the gospel is propagated with it, we are not to become mere do-gooders and must remember and not lose focus of the fact that we are "aliens and foreigners" and our real "citizenship is in heaven" (cf. Phil. 3:20). Christians do have a duty and responsibility to the state, though, as Edmund Burke phrased it: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Soli Deo Gloria!
We have been given the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, but is there a Great Cultural Mandate? Some refer to a social gospel, but this is a misnomer. Our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus, naturally, not to the government, and Jesus did say that His kingdom is not of this world--that He was no threat to Caesar. His kingdom is not of this world! What kind of social calling do we conclude from Scripture? Some Christians believe this society isn't worth saving, some believe politics can't change the human condition, some believe the Bible is not relevant to civil government, and some do believe we should secure and take back society for Christ or reclaim America for Christ! Is it our calling to save America?
You can get too involved in the politics of this world that you are getting nowhere spiritually and getting your eyes off Jesus, but there are evils in society that must be rooted out and the government is instituted to overcome evil, restrain it, and contain it. Look at some of the greatest social movements in history, such as ending the gladiator fights, ending slavery, ending child labor, and giving women their rights, are the result of Christian influence--so there is a place for Christians to get involved with a divine calling.
We also need Christian influence in the government, i.e., as elected officials and public servants influencing for the good as salt and light. Christ's kingdom is one of the hearts of men and is not visible, it will be set up visibly at His second advent and we will rule with Him in glory. But some Christians believe we should try to take over and impose our way of life on the infidel: making him behave or live in a Christian manner and standard. Christian law has been tried and failed several times in history: Calvin's Geneva; Bradford's Plymouth; Winthrop's Massachusetts' Bay Colony; Cromwell's England, among others. We frown upon Muslims saying that tomorrow belongs to Islam and when they set up Shariah law, they aren't recognizing the rights of minorities, i.e., Christians. How can we expect non-Christians to live like Christians? This is really Christian Shariah law (like blue laws, gambling restrictions, and prohibition).
The purpose of government is not to outlaw sin but basically to protect freedoms, protect property, punish crime, securing justice. We are to "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's" (cf. Matt. 22:21) for sure, and we are never told to eschew society, start a revolution, or join hands with the powers that be as partners in crime either. We don't have carte blanche to wreak havoc on the social order. If we lived in a communist nation, we are not to become involved in a subversive underground of resistance but be model citizens and fulfill our mission of being salt and light.
However, there does come a time when the government tells us to do something immoral or forbids the free exercise of our faith, then it's imperative to disobey in an act of defiance and civil disobedience. Here's the rub: "We must obey God rather than men" (cf. Acts 5:29; 4:19). This is amply demonstrated by Daniel refusing to pray to the statue and being thrown into the lion's den; he neither flaunted nor privatized his faith as a prime minister who was salt and light.
The Bible makes it clear that our primary mission is to change hearts through the gospel message, and hopefully, society will be revolutionized as a direct result. Paul didn't make it his mission to overthrow slavery, but with the spread of Christianity, its demise was certain as believers rejected it and had more influence--not forced change. We are not called to set up a theocratic government or experiment with a nation ruled by religious leaders. It was Christian influence that said we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--rights are conferred from God and recognized by the state.
However, the conclusion of the matter is that we represent Christ to the world as His hands, feet, heart, and voice and we have the power to make a difference by being that salt and light, which preserves and shows the way in the darkness. The church shouldn't get overly obsessed with turning stones into bread or mission work unless the gospel is propagated with it, we are not to become mere do-gooders and must remember and not lose focus of the fact that we are "aliens and foreigners" and our real "citizenship is in heaven" (cf. Phil. 3:20). Christians do have a duty and responsibility to the state, though, as Edmund Burke phrased it: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Soli Deo Gloria!
Refuting Error And Polemic Technique
Gen. George S. Patton wrote a book, Patton's Principles: A Handbook for Managers Who Mean It. The point he makes is that we need to pick our battles and not get into disputes for no good reason when we have nothing positive to gain. If we have everything to lose and nothing to gain, avoid it! Some arguments generate more heat than light, and subsequently, aren't worth the adrenaline.
The Bible says that God's servant must not be quarrelsome, and forbids us to be contentious, argumentative, judgmental, or divisive; the strategy of the devil is to divide and conquer and we need not be ignorant of his schemes. We must learn the art or discipline of agreeing to disagree, and to disagree without being disagreeable! Some people avoid all arguments like the plague, but an argument is simply showing someone his error or falsehood.
There are rules of debate and etiquette to keep arguments civil and under control, so as not to alienate and do irreparable damage to the relationship: they say you shouldn't ever talk politics or religion, according to the American maxim, but how do we ever arrive at truth without doing that? Truth is not relative but absolute and we need to be devoted to the truth; the unbeliever rejects the truth, but he who is of the truth hears God's voice--Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and truth came through Him, the personification of it. A good lawyer can argue both sides of the case and knows the arguments pro and con, but we also hone our skills at learning and speaking by the principle that "iron sharpens iron" (per Proverbs 27:17).
We all tend to be opinionated and some people don't want to understand, just express opinions, but just as we hold opinions, convictions hold us and we would consider laying down our lives for them. We all have a right to our own private opinions, but not to fabricate our personal facts. The Bible doesn't forbid controversy, just godless controversy. A point in fact: John Stott wrote a book, Christ the Controversialist, to show that he didn't shy away from hot topics and wasn't afraid to upset the apple cart and the security of the Pharisees' turf, so as to make them jealous of His fame and popularity. We must not avoid controversy because it's not an option; to avoid it is to avoid Christ and the truth, letting heresy take over the church.
We must aggressively confront heresy and confute those in opposition to sound doctrine--a good deacon can defend the faith and confront heresy, even smelling false doctrine a mile away, as it were. Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Let's not lose by default because we conceded and didn't come to the rescue and aid of our errant brothers. The truth of the Bible is fully defensible and we need to be equipped to rightly divide the Word of Truth and to study to show ourselves approved unto God, as workmen without shame (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15).
Republicans insist there's no "evidence" of a cover-up; there's plenty of it, but they don't know what evidence in a court of law is: it doesn't necessarily mean "proof" but only an argument or case to consider in making the decision of guilt or innocence. There is often evidence pro and con in every case. There is evidence of a cover-up because Trump told the Russians that he got rid of the "crazy nut job" to ease the pressure on the Russia issue. He also admitted to Lester Holt on TV that the reason Comey was fired was an attempt to end the Russia investigation (by intimidation).
Obstruction of justice, by the way, doesn't have to be successful, to be considered obstruction, all one has to do is make the attempt, even if it fails. It isn't just one staff member that's under suspicion, but eighteen and there is evidence according to the FBI of a cover-up, and this implies there's a crime to cover up! As they say, where's there's smoke, there's fire. Soli Deo Gloria!
The Bible says that God's servant must not be quarrelsome, and forbids us to be contentious, argumentative, judgmental, or divisive; the strategy of the devil is to divide and conquer and we need not be ignorant of his schemes. We must learn the art or discipline of agreeing to disagree, and to disagree without being disagreeable! Some people avoid all arguments like the plague, but an argument is simply showing someone his error or falsehood.
There are rules of debate and etiquette to keep arguments civil and under control, so as not to alienate and do irreparable damage to the relationship: they say you shouldn't ever talk politics or religion, according to the American maxim, but how do we ever arrive at truth without doing that? Truth is not relative but absolute and we need to be devoted to the truth; the unbeliever rejects the truth, but he who is of the truth hears God's voice--Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and truth came through Him, the personification of it. A good lawyer can argue both sides of the case and knows the arguments pro and con, but we also hone our skills at learning and speaking by the principle that "iron sharpens iron" (per Proverbs 27:17).
We all tend to be opinionated and some people don't want to understand, just express opinions, but just as we hold opinions, convictions hold us and we would consider laying down our lives for them. We all have a right to our own private opinions, but not to fabricate our personal facts. The Bible doesn't forbid controversy, just godless controversy. A point in fact: John Stott wrote a book, Christ the Controversialist, to show that he didn't shy away from hot topics and wasn't afraid to upset the apple cart and the security of the Pharisees' turf, so as to make them jealous of His fame and popularity. We must not avoid controversy because it's not an option; to avoid it is to avoid Christ and the truth, letting heresy take over the church.
We must aggressively confront heresy and confute those in opposition to sound doctrine--a good deacon can defend the faith and confront heresy, even smelling false doctrine a mile away, as it were. Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Let's not lose by default because we conceded and didn't come to the rescue and aid of our errant brothers. The truth of the Bible is fully defensible and we need to be equipped to rightly divide the Word of Truth and to study to show ourselves approved unto God, as workmen without shame (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15).
Republicans insist there's no "evidence" of a cover-up; there's plenty of it, but they don't know what evidence in a court of law is: it doesn't necessarily mean "proof" but only an argument or case to consider in making the decision of guilt or innocence. There is often evidence pro and con in every case. There is evidence of a cover-up because Trump told the Russians that he got rid of the "crazy nut job" to ease the pressure on the Russia issue. He also admitted to Lester Holt on TV that the reason Comey was fired was an attempt to end the Russia investigation (by intimidation).
Obstruction of justice, by the way, doesn't have to be successful, to be considered obstruction, all one has to do is make the attempt, even if it fails. It isn't just one staff member that's under suspicion, but eighteen and there is evidence according to the FBI of a cover-up, and this implies there's a crime to cover up! As they say, where's there's smoke, there's fire. Soli Deo Gloria!
The Closing Of The American MInd
"The wicked are too proud to seek God. They seem to think that God is dead" (Ps. 10:4, NLT).
Allan Bloom wrote a book by the same title, decrying the fact that profs nowadays teach that truth is relative--this is a completely useless proposition and has no truth value: relative to what or to whom? Is that premise only relative? Postmodernism arose out of the aftermath of modernism when scholars thought science had all the answers, now they are part of the problem (WMD), among other things--scientists have problems too!
Postmodernism is then a skeptical mood that has an anti-worldview worldview! They see no metanarrative (having a disdain for them), as they refer to it as--they have a hermeneutic of suspicion. They are doubtful as to whether any universal/absolute truth exists, and, if it does, whether we can know it: nothing exists; if it does, we can not know it; if we can know it, we cannot communicate it; if we can communicate it, we cannot understand it (according to David Noebel's estimation). I've heard that one prof told freshmen that they can know nothing for certain; one student asked if he was sure; he was certain! Student beware of this new governing epistemology that is highly irrational and anti-intellectual, as I shall expound.
The reason they deny worldviews is because they deny we can see anything from God's point of view or viewpoint, and they are suspicious of God too. They deny objectivity or a God's-eye view. If there is no God, it follows that truth is also up for grabs! But they dodge the no-truth bullet and see truth as a short-term contract. There is, therefore, no reliable truth and no one can judge your truth or what you believe--your claims have no power over another. It is possible that we refer to truth because it exists? You may have heard the common claim that someone says: that may be true for you, but not for me; they are confusing something: it may work for you and what works isn't necessarily true, though what's true does work!
To Postmodernists there is no Truth with a capital T, while Jesus claimed to be the personification or embodiment of absolute truth: "I am the Truth!" But these skeptics don't want to let a Divine Foot in the door, because then they would have to admit to absolute truth; they go hand in hand! Truth not only exists but God has made a revelation of it and we can know it; we have only rebelled from it! Shirley Maclaine said "you aren't in a position to know what's true for another." But Postmodernism patron saint is Friedrich Nietzsche, who said that God is dead! But God refuses to die and is alive today while Nietzsche is dead. What he meant in saying God is dead is that they have killed Him and that He was no longer necessary to explain reality or even no longer relative!
We see Postmodernism in SCOTUS as they see the U.S. Constitution as a living document open to be interpreted by today's understanding and not what the framers intended. Therefore it may have multiple meanings and changes in meaning to suit the times (polysemy). Just like a Shakespearean play may imply something different that he never intended when performed today. Confucius said, "When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." Truth is not open to many interpretations and is absolute and universal, not variable and personal.
All knowledge begins in faith, it's been postulated, and Augustine said that he believes in order to understand: faith precedes reason and all knowledge is based on some premise he cannot prove and must accept by faith. All absolute truth begins with God as premise and starting point of reference just like Proverbs 1:7, says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge...." If we deny God, we have no basis of knowing anything metaphysical for certain. There are only four ways to know something: faith, revelation, reason, experience or observation!
We all have to start believing something we cannot prove, even in mathematics and science! We never could've known for sure of God's existence had He not taken the initiative and revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, who entered history and changed it in the process. Socrates said that to gain knowledge, we must admit our ignorance! You will never find the truth unless you're willing to admit you could be wrong and are willing to go where the evidence leads, having an open mind.
This explains why we have modern skeptics like Pontius Pilate, who asked what truth was because people assume they know it all and aren't willing to go where it may lead. Truth conflicts with their principles and ethics or morality, not intellect; no truth equals no virtue, according to Socrates! Postmodernism is a sign of moral rebellion and of stubborn hearts who conveniently deny any Supreme Being declaring Truth with a capital T, that they have to submit to and obey and be accountable to!
There is danger and threat from within the church as some theologians and pastors become taken in by this philosophy and don't think we have "arrived at the truth of the gospel" yet, but everything is still up for grabs and personal interpretation. The church has taken hundreds of years to arrive at its doctrines, and we are to profit from this, not start over each generation, as if it's all up for grabs all over again--deja vu! This is the ultimate result and consequence when man leaves God out of the reckoning or the equation of reason!
In sum, per David Noebel, Postmodernism is theologically atheist, philosophically skeptical, ethically relative, biologically evolutionist, psychologically materialist, politically leftist, and legally pragmatic. This is why it's the primary threat to Christianity and absolute, universal truth as we know it and has been revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ's person.
["They traded the truth of God for a lie" (Romans 1:25, NLT). "...because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them" (2 Thessalonians 1:10, NLT). Unbelievers are those who reject the truth, according to Romans 2:8!] Raise the war cry: there's a Truth War that we cannot afford to lose by default; we must not make any concessions to evil. Soli Deo Gloria!
Allan Bloom wrote a book by the same title, decrying the fact that profs nowadays teach that truth is relative--this is a completely useless proposition and has no truth value: relative to what or to whom? Is that premise only relative? Postmodernism arose out of the aftermath of modernism when scholars thought science had all the answers, now they are part of the problem (WMD), among other things--scientists have problems too!
Postmodernism is then a skeptical mood that has an anti-worldview worldview! They see no metanarrative (having a disdain for them), as they refer to it as--they have a hermeneutic of suspicion. They are doubtful as to whether any universal/absolute truth exists, and, if it does, whether we can know it: nothing exists; if it does, we can not know it; if we can know it, we cannot communicate it; if we can communicate it, we cannot understand it (according to David Noebel's estimation). I've heard that one prof told freshmen that they can know nothing for certain; one student asked if he was sure; he was certain! Student beware of this new governing epistemology that is highly irrational and anti-intellectual, as I shall expound.
The reason they deny worldviews is because they deny we can see anything from God's point of view or viewpoint, and they are suspicious of God too. They deny objectivity or a God's-eye view. If there is no God, it follows that truth is also up for grabs! But they dodge the no-truth bullet and see truth as a short-term contract. There is, therefore, no reliable truth and no one can judge your truth or what you believe--your claims have no power over another. It is possible that we refer to truth because it exists? You may have heard the common claim that someone says: that may be true for you, but not for me; they are confusing something: it may work for you and what works isn't necessarily true, though what's true does work!
To Postmodernists there is no Truth with a capital T, while Jesus claimed to be the personification or embodiment of absolute truth: "I am the Truth!" But these skeptics don't want to let a Divine Foot in the door, because then they would have to admit to absolute truth; they go hand in hand! Truth not only exists but God has made a revelation of it and we can know it; we have only rebelled from it! Shirley Maclaine said "you aren't in a position to know what's true for another." But Postmodernism patron saint is Friedrich Nietzsche, who said that God is dead! But God refuses to die and is alive today while Nietzsche is dead. What he meant in saying God is dead is that they have killed Him and that He was no longer necessary to explain reality or even no longer relative!
We see Postmodernism in SCOTUS as they see the U.S. Constitution as a living document open to be interpreted by today's understanding and not what the framers intended. Therefore it may have multiple meanings and changes in meaning to suit the times (polysemy). Just like a Shakespearean play may imply something different that he never intended when performed today. Confucius said, "When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." Truth is not open to many interpretations and is absolute and universal, not variable and personal.
All knowledge begins in faith, it's been postulated, and Augustine said that he believes in order to understand: faith precedes reason and all knowledge is based on some premise he cannot prove and must accept by faith. All absolute truth begins with God as premise and starting point of reference just like Proverbs 1:7, says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge...." If we deny God, we have no basis of knowing anything metaphysical for certain. There are only four ways to know something: faith, revelation, reason, experience or observation!
We all have to start believing something we cannot prove, even in mathematics and science! We never could've known for sure of God's existence had He not taken the initiative and revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, who entered history and changed it in the process. Socrates said that to gain knowledge, we must admit our ignorance! You will never find the truth unless you're willing to admit you could be wrong and are willing to go where the evidence leads, having an open mind.
This explains why we have modern skeptics like Pontius Pilate, who asked what truth was because people assume they know it all and aren't willing to go where it may lead. Truth conflicts with their principles and ethics or morality, not intellect; no truth equals no virtue, according to Socrates! Postmodernism is a sign of moral rebellion and of stubborn hearts who conveniently deny any Supreme Being declaring Truth with a capital T, that they have to submit to and obey and be accountable to!
There is danger and threat from within the church as some theologians and pastors become taken in by this philosophy and don't think we have "arrived at the truth of the gospel" yet, but everything is still up for grabs and personal interpretation. The church has taken hundreds of years to arrive at its doctrines, and we are to profit from this, not start over each generation, as if it's all up for grabs all over again--deja vu! This is the ultimate result and consequence when man leaves God out of the reckoning or the equation of reason!
In sum, per David Noebel, Postmodernism is theologically atheist, philosophically skeptical, ethically relative, biologically evolutionist, psychologically materialist, politically leftist, and legally pragmatic. This is why it's the primary threat to Christianity and absolute, universal truth as we know it and has been revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ's person.
["They traded the truth of God for a lie" (Romans 1:25, NLT). "...because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them" (2 Thessalonians 1:10, NLT). Unbelievers are those who reject the truth, according to Romans 2:8!] Raise the war cry: there's a Truth War that we cannot afford to lose by default; we must not make any concessions to evil. Soli Deo Gloria!
Can Man Live Without God?
"Men have forgotten God." (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
"A person cannot live without worshiping something." (Fyodor Dostoevsky)
The whole concept of modern Secular Humanism is to exalt man (glory to man in the highest!) and to dethrone God and put Him in His place, as they see it. In other words, they proclaim: Up with man, down with God! Man has attempted to make a name for himself ever since the tower of Babel (cf. Gen. 11:4) and believes he can get along without God's intervention, grace, or providence. Man is deluded into thinking he can rule God out of the universe and doesn't need Him. Pertinent remarks by great thinkers: "Religion is indispensable to private and morals and public order" (Cicero); "No society has ever been able to maintain a moral life without the aid of its religion" (William Durant). Humanism has been defined as "religion without God." And you don't have to be an atheist to have no place for God in your life, practical atheists believe in God, but live as though there is no God. Psalm 10:4 (HCSB) sums it up: "There is no accountability since God does not exist."
Humanist historian/philosopher (and author of The Story of Civilization) Will Durant posed the dilemma we face today as the postmodern philosophy (that "God is dead") that permeates society; and humanists try to be good without God in the equation: "The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, nor even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God." People have no excuse not to believe in God (cf. Rom. 1:20), but they foolishly suppress the fact and are in a state of denial. They seem to think that God is no longer relevant, that we can solve our issues and problems without His input or intervention, and that we are basically good, not evil.
We live in an age when sinners decide that they are their own judges of morality and can make their own value judgments: "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes," much like Israel did, as recorded in Judges 21:25. Men find themselves judging God, rather than realizing He's their judge. Now the biggest problem nations face is that of keeping the peace, and there shall be wars and rumors of wars till the end, and when we reach peace we will no longer feel we need God. America is a so-called good nation by human standards as recorded by secular Alexis de Tocqueville, in his work Democracy in America, which he wrote after visiting the U.S, posited that our strength lie in our "goodness," and when we "ceased to be good we will cease to be great." This is not based on biblical nor historical precedent, but only personal deduction and observation.
Yes, America is different (we are probably the most religious nation on earth), yet we are failing on the world stage due to poor leadership and the good citizens (believers) cease to be salt and light and evil is winning by default, not because Christianity has failed, nor because its worldview is faulty, but because Christians fail to stand up and be counted, to take their stand for the right and to fly their Christian colors. It has been said by philosophers and historians that morality in a nation cannot be upheld without the aid of religion: George Bernard Shaw said that "no nation can survive the loss of its gods." George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." Christians ought to protest the secularization of a society that seeks to eradicate God from the public square and discourse. We cannot silence God, though! If we try to go to war with Him we will lose and our nation will lose its blessing and providential hand. We fight this by speaking up against the evils of society, even if it entails becoming activists and doing whatever you can to mobilize the church and equip them for the battle. We are not to passively allow Satan to seize control!
When you take God out of the picture, there remains a vacuum that is filled with satanic activity. When we cease to worship God, we will ultimately find something else to worship, because man is meant and designed for worship! God is the motive people have for good behavior because you see very few hospitals, orphanages, relief organizations, leprosariums founded by infidels. In India, they think that the suffering of man is caused by bad karma and you shouldn't interfere with another's karma!
We are at the point in our society where we don't know right from wrong and have lost our moral fiber because there's no moral compass and God condemns those who call good evil and evil good (cf. Isa. 5:20). There is an absolute standard to judge by and people do instinctively know right from wrong due to having a conscience and everyone is culpable to be blamed because of transcendent or natural law, which is above national law and even nations are subject to.
You could say that the new battle is against God and the new war of independence is from God! People, in general, think that the Ten Commandments are obsolete and don't apply to a modern society and don't feel bound by them, free to make up their own rules as they go along to suit themselves. As long as they can think of some reason to justify themselves and have good motives, the reason that they are doing the right thing.
But goodness isn't defined by man, but by God and is in conformity with His nature. The basic diagnosis of man is that he does things his way and not God's way (as Isa. 53:6 says, "... we have turned every one to his own way..."). We cannot know good without knowing God, for He is the final arbiter of it and will judge us and our standards of good versus His. Without God, Shakespeare summed up the essence of life as Macbeth mused: "... 'tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." If we are not in God's image, we are mere animals and glorified apes: "Do you think we are mere animals? Do you think we are stupid?" (Job 18:3, NLT)--teach man he is an animal and he will act like one.
"Without God, life makes no sense," according to Rick Warren! "If there is no God all things are permissible," according to Fyodor Dostoevsky, and there can be no absolutes or standards to measure perfection by. The world has nothing against religion as long as it remains privatized, but we are to spread the word and be obedient to the gospel without suppressing it--it's a command to obey not an option to consider. The implications of atheism are profound: No judge to make us feel guilty; no lawgiver to obey; no ruler or sovereign to submit to, no creator to emulate, know, and love; no hell to shun; and no heaven to look forward to--how dismal and bleak an outlook!
Romans 1:18ff shows what transpires once man leaves God out of the reckoning. In the final analysis, God will bless America by association again when the church repents and gets back on track fulfilling the Great Commission (not the Great Suggestion), and not when the church tries to implement sharia law or usher in the Millennial Kingdom, in order to "advance the cause of Christ" through legislation or government. Soli Deo Gloria!
"A person cannot live without worshiping something." (Fyodor Dostoevsky)
The whole concept of modern Secular Humanism is to exalt man (glory to man in the highest!) and to dethrone God and put Him in His place, as they see it. In other words, they proclaim: Up with man, down with God! Man has attempted to make a name for himself ever since the tower of Babel (cf. Gen. 11:4) and believes he can get along without God's intervention, grace, or providence. Man is deluded into thinking he can rule God out of the universe and doesn't need Him. Pertinent remarks by great thinkers: "Religion is indispensable to private and morals and public order" (Cicero); "No society has ever been able to maintain a moral life without the aid of its religion" (William Durant). Humanism has been defined as "religion without God." And you don't have to be an atheist to have no place for God in your life, practical atheists believe in God, but live as though there is no God. Psalm 10:4 (HCSB) sums it up: "There is no accountability since God does not exist."
Humanist historian/philosopher (and author of The Story of Civilization) Will Durant posed the dilemma we face today as the postmodern philosophy (that "God is dead") that permeates society; and humanists try to be good without God in the equation: "The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, nor even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God." People have no excuse not to believe in God (cf. Rom. 1:20), but they foolishly suppress the fact and are in a state of denial. They seem to think that God is no longer relevant, that we can solve our issues and problems without His input or intervention, and that we are basically good, not evil.
We live in an age when sinners decide that they are their own judges of morality and can make their own value judgments: "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes," much like Israel did, as recorded in Judges 21:25. Men find themselves judging God, rather than realizing He's their judge. Now the biggest problem nations face is that of keeping the peace, and there shall be wars and rumors of wars till the end, and when we reach peace we will no longer feel we need God. America is a so-called good nation by human standards as recorded by secular Alexis de Tocqueville, in his work Democracy in America, which he wrote after visiting the U.S, posited that our strength lie in our "goodness," and when we "ceased to be good we will cease to be great." This is not based on biblical nor historical precedent, but only personal deduction and observation.
Yes, America is different (we are probably the most religious nation on earth), yet we are failing on the world stage due to poor leadership and the good citizens (believers) cease to be salt and light and evil is winning by default, not because Christianity has failed, nor because its worldview is faulty, but because Christians fail to stand up and be counted, to take their stand for the right and to fly their Christian colors. It has been said by philosophers and historians that morality in a nation cannot be upheld without the aid of religion: George Bernard Shaw said that "no nation can survive the loss of its gods." George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." Christians ought to protest the secularization of a society that seeks to eradicate God from the public square and discourse. We cannot silence God, though! If we try to go to war with Him we will lose and our nation will lose its blessing and providential hand. We fight this by speaking up against the evils of society, even if it entails becoming activists and doing whatever you can to mobilize the church and equip them for the battle. We are not to passively allow Satan to seize control!
When you take God out of the picture, there remains a vacuum that is filled with satanic activity. When we cease to worship God, we will ultimately find something else to worship, because man is meant and designed for worship! God is the motive people have for good behavior because you see very few hospitals, orphanages, relief organizations, leprosariums founded by infidels. In India, they think that the suffering of man is caused by bad karma and you shouldn't interfere with another's karma!
We are at the point in our society where we don't know right from wrong and have lost our moral fiber because there's no moral compass and God condemns those who call good evil and evil good (cf. Isa. 5:20). There is an absolute standard to judge by and people do instinctively know right from wrong due to having a conscience and everyone is culpable to be blamed because of transcendent or natural law, which is above national law and even nations are subject to.
You could say that the new battle is against God and the new war of independence is from God! People, in general, think that the Ten Commandments are obsolete and don't apply to a modern society and don't feel bound by them, free to make up their own rules as they go along to suit themselves. As long as they can think of some reason to justify themselves and have good motives, the reason that they are doing the right thing.
But goodness isn't defined by man, but by God and is in conformity with His nature. The basic diagnosis of man is that he does things his way and not God's way (as Isa. 53:6 says, "... we have turned every one to his own way..."). We cannot know good without knowing God, for He is the final arbiter of it and will judge us and our standards of good versus His. Without God, Shakespeare summed up the essence of life as Macbeth mused: "... 'tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." If we are not in God's image, we are mere animals and glorified apes: "Do you think we are mere animals? Do you think we are stupid?" (Job 18:3, NLT)--teach man he is an animal and he will act like one.
"Without God, life makes no sense," according to Rick Warren! "If there is no God all things are permissible," according to Fyodor Dostoevsky, and there can be no absolutes or standards to measure perfection by. The world has nothing against religion as long as it remains privatized, but we are to spread the word and be obedient to the gospel without suppressing it--it's a command to obey not an option to consider. The implications of atheism are profound: No judge to make us feel guilty; no lawgiver to obey; no ruler or sovereign to submit to, no creator to emulate, know, and love; no hell to shun; and no heaven to look forward to--how dismal and bleak an outlook!
Romans 1:18ff shows what transpires once man leaves God out of the reckoning. In the final analysis, God will bless America by association again when the church repents and gets back on track fulfilling the Great Commission (not the Great Suggestion), and not when the church tries to implement sharia law or usher in the Millennial Kingdom, in order to "advance the cause of Christ" through legislation or government. Soli Deo Gloria!
Can Man Live Without God In The Picture?
I'm not saying what would happen if there were no God (Acts 17:28 says, "For in Him we live and move and have our being..."), but how man's worldview is affected without a foundation in God--we must begin with God and explain the universe, not begin with the universe and explain God away! Athanasius said that the only system of though that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point.
Man cannot survive without conceiving of God; His manifest reality is known to every tribe, nation, and tongue or civilization. Man isn't naturally an atheist or agnostic, but religious to the core; he has been dubbed Homo religiosus or the religious being. They also call him Homo divinus, or the divine being (in the image of God or imago Dei). Man is meant or hard-wired for worship, and if he doesn't find God, he will worship someone or something else, which is idolatry. There is a gap or vacuum that must be filled and only God can adequately do the job. Pascal did say that only God can fill this empty space and Augustine said that we are restless till we find our peace or rest in God.
When you take God out of the reckoning, man becomes uncivilized, as witnessed and documented in Romans 1, where God gives man up to his perversions. Yes, we need God, He doesn't need us! We can only find our fulfillment in Him and serving Him. There is indeed purpose in life when one knows the Lord and serves Him; the chief end of man, according to The Westminster Shorter Catechism, is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever"--taken from Isaiah 43:7, which says we're created for His glory. We are the icons of God, bearing His image to the world and God has something to say through us; we are His voice to spread the Word, not angels!
Without God, man has come from nothing, has no meaning in life, and is heading nowhere! We must be able to answer the ultimate questions of life to have meaning and fulfillment: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I headed or going to? What is man's destiny? Is there a difference between right and wrong? The Bible answers all these questions and science cannot because they are out of its domain or turf. Science cannot make philosophical, religious, ethical, nor metaphysical judgments--neither can it make any value judgments, it is the "know-how," not the "know-why." Yes, science is limited and we must not put our ultimate faith in it to solve all our problems or answer all our questions.
The scientific method doesn't apply to the metaphysical answers to the physical and to the spiritual, religious, ethical, nor moral domains. For example, you cannot measure three feet of love, nor five pounds of justice, yet they exist and are real. Love exists, yet you cannot prove or disprove it either! In science, you have to have laboratory conditions, be able to measure, observe, and repeat an experiment with variables and controls to get a working hypothesis and finally a theory, and then a scientific, verifiable fact.
Note that it's only because of the Christian worldview that science was made possible and the first scientists were Christians--there's no final conflict between science and the Bible, which is not a science text, but has no scientific absurdities or erroneous ideas. Where it does make scientific claims, the info is correct and has been proven ahead of its time--such as the discovery of the water cycle, and ocean currents, the fact that the earth is round and is hung on nothing in space! When science alienates Christians and becomes their enemy, they become unscientific and dogmatic, which is not scientific.
When we try to establish ethics without God, it is impossible to have a foundation. Fyodor Dostoevsky said that without God all things are permissible or up for grabs. God is the source of absolute truth with a capital T and if there is no God, there can be no absolute Truth! And so, without God, man is like a ship without a rudder with no anchor nor moral compass! We are a law unto ourselves and each of us can make up our own ethical system as we go along, and morality is simply what we decide it is as a group, and it changes over time as we get more "civilized." The Ten Commandments are then obsolete and too binding for our free lifestyle, which has no restraints nor limits.
"Law is merely the majority vote that licks all others," to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Bible says in Psalm 11:3 that "when the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" We have then lost our moral fiber as a nation and become free spirits, each man doing his own thing and what is right in his own eyes, the way Israel did before it had a king (cf. Judges 21:25). God cares a lot about right and wrong and we have His moral law in our hearts in the form of conscience (cf. Rom. 2:15)--unfortunately, some choose to ignore it do evil. We were meant for something better than anarchy and immoral, unethical society.
The end result is that man worships himself, fame, fortune, power, popularity, success, possessions, and even does hero worship, all of which are unfulfilling false gods and idolatry, that cannot meet man's inner longing for a relationship with God, not merely acknowledging or knowing He exists. Jesus promised abundant life to all sincere seekers and God will authenticate Himself to everyone who diligently searches for Him (cf. Heb. 11:6)--He's not playing cosmic hide-and-seek, but will not reveal Himself to triflers!
An so the biggest question and issue facing man today is whether he can live without God, according to humanist historian/philosopher Will Durant, and our government becomes the highest law, in the land and is accountable to no one as final Judge. Consequently, there is no Judgment Day, no Lawgiver, and no Ruler of man, no hell to shun, and no motive to be good, all because man doesn't put God in the equation.
Just like Friedrich Nietzsche declared God dead, or irrelevant and unnecessary, we must find out for ourselves the hard way, because man refuses to listen to the modern-day prophets and heed what Scripture says; man is ultimately headed nowhere and history has no meaning or purpose, with no climax, conclusion, or consummation either. Man becomes a glorified ape or hominid, without the dignity of being in God's image, having any restraint on evil, and being able to communicate and know Him.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Man cannot survive without conceiving of God; His manifest reality is known to every tribe, nation, and tongue or civilization. Man isn't naturally an atheist or agnostic, but religious to the core; he has been dubbed Homo religiosus or the religious being. They also call him Homo divinus, or the divine being (in the image of God or imago Dei). Man is meant or hard-wired for worship, and if he doesn't find God, he will worship someone or something else, which is idolatry. There is a gap or vacuum that must be filled and only God can adequately do the job. Pascal did say that only God can fill this empty space and Augustine said that we are restless till we find our peace or rest in God.
When you take God out of the reckoning, man becomes uncivilized, as witnessed and documented in Romans 1, where God gives man up to his perversions. Yes, we need God, He doesn't need us! We can only find our fulfillment in Him and serving Him. There is indeed purpose in life when one knows the Lord and serves Him; the chief end of man, according to The Westminster Shorter Catechism, is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever"--taken from Isaiah 43:7, which says we're created for His glory. We are the icons of God, bearing His image to the world and God has something to say through us; we are His voice to spread the Word, not angels!
Without God, man has come from nothing, has no meaning in life, and is heading nowhere! We must be able to answer the ultimate questions of life to have meaning and fulfillment: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I headed or going to? What is man's destiny? Is there a difference between right and wrong? The Bible answers all these questions and science cannot because they are out of its domain or turf. Science cannot make philosophical, religious, ethical, nor metaphysical judgments--neither can it make any value judgments, it is the "know-how," not the "know-why." Yes, science is limited and we must not put our ultimate faith in it to solve all our problems or answer all our questions.
The scientific method doesn't apply to the metaphysical answers to the physical and to the spiritual, religious, ethical, nor moral domains. For example, you cannot measure three feet of love, nor five pounds of justice, yet they exist and are real. Love exists, yet you cannot prove or disprove it either! In science, you have to have laboratory conditions, be able to measure, observe, and repeat an experiment with variables and controls to get a working hypothesis and finally a theory, and then a scientific, verifiable fact.
Note that it's only because of the Christian worldview that science was made possible and the first scientists were Christians--there's no final conflict between science and the Bible, which is not a science text, but has no scientific absurdities or erroneous ideas. Where it does make scientific claims, the info is correct and has been proven ahead of its time--such as the discovery of the water cycle, and ocean currents, the fact that the earth is round and is hung on nothing in space! When science alienates Christians and becomes their enemy, they become unscientific and dogmatic, which is not scientific.
When we try to establish ethics without God, it is impossible to have a foundation. Fyodor Dostoevsky said that without God all things are permissible or up for grabs. God is the source of absolute truth with a capital T and if there is no God, there can be no absolute Truth! And so, without God, man is like a ship without a rudder with no anchor nor moral compass! We are a law unto ourselves and each of us can make up our own ethical system as we go along, and morality is simply what we decide it is as a group, and it changes over time as we get more "civilized." The Ten Commandments are then obsolete and too binding for our free lifestyle, which has no restraints nor limits.
"Law is merely the majority vote that licks all others," to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Bible says in Psalm 11:3 that "when the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" We have then lost our moral fiber as a nation and become free spirits, each man doing his own thing and what is right in his own eyes, the way Israel did before it had a king (cf. Judges 21:25). God cares a lot about right and wrong and we have His moral law in our hearts in the form of conscience (cf. Rom. 2:15)--unfortunately, some choose to ignore it do evil. We were meant for something better than anarchy and immoral, unethical society.
The end result is that man worships himself, fame, fortune, power, popularity, success, possessions, and even does hero worship, all of which are unfulfilling false gods and idolatry, that cannot meet man's inner longing for a relationship with God, not merely acknowledging or knowing He exists. Jesus promised abundant life to all sincere seekers and God will authenticate Himself to everyone who diligently searches for Him (cf. Heb. 11:6)--He's not playing cosmic hide-and-seek, but will not reveal Himself to triflers!
An so the biggest question and issue facing man today is whether he can live without God, according to humanist historian/philosopher Will Durant, and our government becomes the highest law, in the land and is accountable to no one as final Judge. Consequently, there is no Judgment Day, no Lawgiver, and no Ruler of man, no hell to shun, and no motive to be good, all because man doesn't put God in the equation.
Just like Friedrich Nietzsche declared God dead, or irrelevant and unnecessary, we must find out for ourselves the hard way, because man refuses to listen to the modern-day prophets and heed what Scripture says; man is ultimately headed nowhere and history has no meaning or purpose, with no climax, conclusion, or consummation either. Man becomes a glorified ape or hominid, without the dignity of being in God's image, having any restraint on evil, and being able to communicate and know Him.
Soli Deo Gloria!
What Makes Us Human?
"Do you think we are mere animals? Do you think we are stupid?" (Job 18:3, NLT). "Where is the one who makes us smarter than the animals?" (Job 35:11, NLT). "There is something about the way God is that is like the way we are." (Moreland and Rae, Body & Soul, 158). NB: CAN IT BE THAT THERE IS HUMAN NATURE BECAUSE WE ACT LIKE THERE IS?
Man is not an animal; they want you to believe that because they want to act like animals! We are stewards over the animal kingdom, not part of it. However, man has no inherent dignity, but only as extrinsic from God, being imago Dei, or in the image of God--bearing the image and likeness of God as His icons, so to speak. There isn't much worth in being a grown-up germ or glorified monkey! Even Darwin scoffed at the idea of trusting the convictions of a monkey. One news magazine published an article that said we are all "lucky to be here!" Some biologists believe this Great Lie that man has evolved from the ape (sometimes called the "naked ape"), as a credo that is really a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith." That means the only reason some scientists believe it is because it's so universally accepted and for such a long time--only recently have serious issues and doubts been raised (in fact it doesn't even fit the definition of scientific theory). There is no fossil evidence for evolution that we came from apes (according to the London Museum of Natural History) either, and Darwin said that if the theory were correct, there would be!
It has been said that evolution is unproven and unprovable--it's never been observed, and no one has ever been able to create a new species, much less pull off an origin of life experiment. Even if you have a primordial soup (where did this soup come from?) perfect with methane, ammonia, water, nitrogen, etc., and jolt it with electric shocks, the simple amino acids formed (the building blocks of protein, which is necessary for life) are destroyed simultaneously by the oxygen in the atmosphere, and they have proved that the early earth atmosphere had oxygen present. Truly, the Achilles' heel of evolution is that they cannot explain what life is, nor explain how it originated--if they have to add an intelligent input, that would prove only that a Creator was in charge.
Now, what does this image mean to us? Man is like God and God formed us in His image, we didn't form God in ours! There is a bona fide similarity because God is a person, we are too, and able to communicate with each other; we have a mind to know God, a heart to love Him, and a will to obey Him--animals don't but are driven by instinct. Man is capable of rebelling against God and going his own way, and he does! The obvious truth is that if we are persons, God has to be greater than a person or a person Himself to a greater degree in order to create us! Except for our sin and limited nature, whatever we are as persons, you can say about God.
How are we like God then? We are rational, emotional, communicative, moral beings, that have dignity, purpose, and meaning in life. We can relate to God as a person because of this--God is just perfect, infinite, immutable, almighty, invisible, omniscient, holy, etc., and God is Spirit, while we have bodies! Originally Adam and Eve had no sin, and were innocent, not knowing good and evil, nor what that means, but now they are guilty before God as sinners in need of redemption, and this image is marred and will be restored someday in glory. Being like God, we are creative and have the imagination that can be communicated and enjoyed.
How do we know we are not animals, that we're unique? Have you ever observed an animal of any species building a chapel, or communicating with God in prayer? Do animals have a conscience, and feel guilty when they've disobeyed or sinned? Animals have a will of their own, for sure, but not to disobey or obey God--animals are oblivious to God's presence and dimension. Only man has the ability to reflect on the past, present, and future, making plans, etc., and to criticize himself or see himself through other people's eyes objectively. Man alone is rational (you can reason with him, and he can reason and learn from it), and is able to communicate all thoughts and feelings, in written, verbal, and body language.
Man alone judges and criticizes and this is because he has a conscience that knows right and wrong by nature; you don't call something crooked if you don't have some idea of what straight is. Man has discernment, ability to distinguish spirits, and insight; however, animals have instinct--they're basically creatures in heat, seeking food and shelter, only to perpetuate their kind. Do animals appreciate art and design, though they may be beautiful, none appreciate it, except in the opposite sex for the mating ritual?
Furthermore, do you realize that man alone can enjoy something vicariously? Man can accumulate and increase a body of knowledge and pass it on to succeeding generations and builds civilizations and cultures. Animals stay at the same level of learning (by instinct) their full lives and never increase in knowledge generation after generation. Animals can mate for life, but they do not fall in and out of love, it's a basic instinct, hormones, and testosterone in action, not the soul or spirit. Animals, such as dogs and cats can show similar qualities of love and affection but have no desire on the abstract level with God (or ideas, learning, wisdom, causes, etc.), and that dimension of relationship.
Now, God says in Genesis 1 that He breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living being! This is the distinction: God has only given man the concept of eternity and the hope of eternal life in his heart, he alone ponders the afterlife and looks for answers to life's spiritual dilemmas. Aren't you glad that you aren't some grand fluke of nature, or cosmic accident, but have a reason for being and purpose in life? And so it's not as simple as the proverb: To err is human, to forgive divine! In sum, some people have a psychological need to conceive of themselves as animals--they desire to act like them! Soli Deo Gloria!
It has been said that evolution is unproven and unprovable--it's never been observed, and no one has ever been able to create a new species, much less pull off an origin of life experiment. Even if you have a primordial soup (where did this soup come from?) perfect with methane, ammonia, water, nitrogen, etc., and jolt it with electric shocks, the simple amino acids formed (the building blocks of protein, which is necessary for life) are destroyed simultaneously by the oxygen in the atmosphere, and they have proved that the early earth atmosphere had oxygen present. Truly, the Achilles' heel of evolution is that they cannot explain what life is, nor explain how it originated--if they have to add an intelligent input, that would prove only that a Creator was in charge.
Now, what does this image mean to us? Man is like God and God formed us in His image, we didn't form God in ours! There is a bona fide similarity because God is a person, we are too, and able to communicate with each other; we have a mind to know God, a heart to love Him, and a will to obey Him--animals don't but are driven by instinct. Man is capable of rebelling against God and going his own way, and he does! The obvious truth is that if we are persons, God has to be greater than a person or a person Himself to a greater degree in order to create us! Except for our sin and limited nature, whatever we are as persons, you can say about God.
How are we like God then? We are rational, emotional, communicative, moral beings, that have dignity, purpose, and meaning in life. We can relate to God as a person because of this--God is just perfect, infinite, immutable, almighty, invisible, omniscient, holy, etc., and God is Spirit, while we have bodies! Originally Adam and Eve had no sin, and were innocent, not knowing good and evil, nor what that means, but now they are guilty before God as sinners in need of redemption, and this image is marred and will be restored someday in glory. Being like God, we are creative and have the imagination that can be communicated and enjoyed.
How do we know we are not animals, that we're unique? Have you ever observed an animal of any species building a chapel, or communicating with God in prayer? Do animals have a conscience, and feel guilty when they've disobeyed or sinned? Animals have a will of their own, for sure, but not to disobey or obey God--animals are oblivious to God's presence and dimension. Only man has the ability to reflect on the past, present, and future, making plans, etc., and to criticize himself or see himself through other people's eyes objectively. Man alone is rational (you can reason with him, and he can reason and learn from it), and is able to communicate all thoughts and feelings, in written, verbal, and body language.
Man alone judges and criticizes and this is because he has a conscience that knows right and wrong by nature; you don't call something crooked if you don't have some idea of what straight is. Man has discernment, ability to distinguish spirits, and insight; however, animals have instinct--they're basically creatures in heat, seeking food and shelter, only to perpetuate their kind. Do animals appreciate art and design, though they may be beautiful, none appreciate it, except in the opposite sex for the mating ritual?
Furthermore, do you realize that man alone can enjoy something vicariously? Man can accumulate and increase a body of knowledge and pass it on to succeeding generations and builds civilizations and cultures. Animals stay at the same level of learning (by instinct) their full lives and never increase in knowledge generation after generation. Animals can mate for life, but they do not fall in and out of love, it's a basic instinct, hormones, and testosterone in action, not the soul or spirit. Animals, such as dogs and cats can show similar qualities of love and affection but have no desire on the abstract level with God (or ideas, learning, wisdom, causes, etc.), and that dimension of relationship.
Now, God says in Genesis 1 that He breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living being! This is the distinction: God has only given man the concept of eternity and the hope of eternal life in his heart, he alone ponders the afterlife and looks for answers to life's spiritual dilemmas. Aren't you glad that you aren't some grand fluke of nature, or cosmic accident, but have a reason for being and purpose in life? And so it's not as simple as the proverb: To err is human, to forgive divine! In sum, some people have a psychological need to conceive of themselves as animals--they desire to act like them! Soli Deo Gloria!
Putting God On Trial
"I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD, and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart" (Jer. 24:7, NASB).
"... 'There is no accountability, since God does not exist'" (Psalm 10:4, HCSB).
The Bible assumes the existence of God and is not apologetic; it makes no effort to pander to those who doubt His existence and offer proof. When asked point blank for evidence to support God's existence, put the skeptic on the defensive and ask him what evidence he's found that God doesn't exist! Christians put the Lord on trial all the time when they try to "prove" Him or offer evidence in order to convince the skeptic or to argue someone into the kingdom by rationalization or presentation of proofs. There are indeed several ways to make it seem reasonable to believe in God, but a God who demands evidence isn't worth our worship. The fact should be obvious and people are without excuse for not believing in God (Christianity isn't about believing in a God, but in the God who is there!); people know the truth and they foolishly suppress it (you have to know it to suppress it!).
When we try to prove God the skeptic is in the position of being the judge ascertaining whether there's enough evidence to convince him. The power of witness and conviction is in the use of the Word of God, not in our clever arguments and rationales. People don't realize it but they claim they know that there is no God, when this is a logical contradiction, which cannot be proved (a universal negative). Atheism is irrational and intellectually bankrupt and has no basis in fact--the only reason people deny God is out of moral concerns, not intellectual ones--all their questions might be answered and they still wouldn't believe, or they could witness miracles and still not believe. One must realize that all knowledge begins in a step of faith in which he cannot prove the premise; scientists are people of faith just as much as religious people, they just bet the farm that science has the answer and not God.
Faith is a gift of God and God expects us to use the faith we have if we are to get more; they are all judged according to the God that they did know and the moral principles they were aware of--our works. God can make a believer out of the most stubborn person and melt his heart into godly faith and repentance from stone to flesh (cf. Ezek. 36:26), as it were. When we judge God by weighing the evidence we put Him on trial and say He needs our approval and judgment to be legit. Evidence is only for the believer to strengthen the faith that is already there to help him realize the reasonableness of Christianity, as John Locke termed it, just like miracles strengthen and support faith, but note that faith doesn't come from miracles, but miracles from faith! This is a paradox!
No one can disbelieve in Christ due to lack of evidence, and there is never enough evidence for the stubborn and unwilling skeptic, who is on a power trip or mind game, and is engaging in intellectual arrogance, not intellectual honesty. God promises to bring faith by the hearing of the Word, i.e., preaching! We should never break faith in the Word as the means to faith, and not our clever proofs. God needs to open hearts and quicken faith within them for the person to come to saving faith. Just head knowledge won't do, because God requires believing in the heart with a love for the Lord. If anyone love not the Lord, he is anathema, maranatha, under a curse till Christ comes, according to 1 Cor. 16:26. We must realize that faith is given, not achieved and those who do believe are not smarter, wiser, more virtuous, nor intelligent than the infidel, but brought to faith by the grace of God and not their own merit or presalvation work. Grace from beginning to end, as Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
When the gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit falls on those listening and does a work of grace in their hearts--for we are all given a measure of faith and receive the same faith (cf. Rom. 12:3; 2 Pet. 1:1). Acts 18:27 says that we "believed through grace," and this was not because we were out-argued or intellectually convinced, but our hearts were changed by grace. We have nothing to boast of in God's presence! Faith is not a work or that would be the beginning of merit-based salvation! Jesus said that the "work of God is that you believe" in Him, and we are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done (cf. Titus 3:5), but by His purpose and grace alone. As Paul said, "grace reigns through righteousness," in Romans 5:21 (which means it's irresistible and sovereign).
In the final analysis, God is our judge--we are not His judge! We are the ones on trial and have been found guilty as sin in need of redemption, justification, reconciliation, and propitiation. The only ones who find the truth are those who admit they're lost and could be wrong. Christianity is fact-based and based on historical records, not fable, myth, hearsay, or man's origin and we don't need all the facts nor all the answers to come to faith, God expects a leap of faith to enter the kingdom and we must trust the Lord for the answers and come to know the Answerer (as Psalm 34:8 says, "Taste and see that the LORD is good," or that the proof of the pudding is in the eating)!
Our assurance is not based on conjecture, but a certainty, as sound as the Word itself. Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to God, should he be wrong: "Why didn't you give more evidence?" He admits there is evidence, after all! Like I said, there is never enough evidence for the hardened, stubborn heart who doesn't want to obey God, for Jesus said, "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know..." (cf. John 7:17). The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart! "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God..." (cf. Psalm 14:1, emphasis mine). Where's the skeptic's heart, not how smart is he? Just like Paul said in Romans 1, that people refuse to acknowledge God and be thankful and their foolish hearts are darkened--they became fools!
The fact is that God exists and people foolishly suppress what they know about Him due to the calloused hearts. Paul makes it clear in 2 Tim. 2:25 that repentance precedes knowledge of the truth and Augustine asserted that we believe in order to understand--faith precedes reason! In other words, we don't argue the way to God, but accept Him as a given and proceed from there to make deductions. God is the beginning point, not man as the Word says, "In the beginning God..." Athanasius said it well, "The only system of thought that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point. Proverbs 1:7 makes my point too: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..." We commence with God, we don't conclude with Him!
To explain just why we cannot engage in a battle of wits or evidence, is because people always interpret evidence in light of their worldview and the evidence they already accept and assume is true--what they do is "file" it away till they can reconcile or answer it to the satisfaction and worldview; they don't want to believe it or God would open their eyes (cf. John 7:17). We cannot reason to God, but with God on our side, we reason from God ("In the beginning God..."), for the Bible and logic are OUR weapon! Remember the ancient axiom: "All knowledge begins in faith." Soli Deo Gloria!
"... 'There is no accountability, since God does not exist'" (Psalm 10:4, HCSB).
The Bible assumes the existence of God and is not apologetic; it makes no effort to pander to those who doubt His existence and offer proof. When asked point blank for evidence to support God's existence, put the skeptic on the defensive and ask him what evidence he's found that God doesn't exist! Christians put the Lord on trial all the time when they try to "prove" Him or offer evidence in order to convince the skeptic or to argue someone into the kingdom by rationalization or presentation of proofs. There are indeed several ways to make it seem reasonable to believe in God, but a God who demands evidence isn't worth our worship. The fact should be obvious and people are without excuse for not believing in God (Christianity isn't about believing in a God, but in the God who is there!); people know the truth and they foolishly suppress it (you have to know it to suppress it!).
When we try to prove God the skeptic is in the position of being the judge ascertaining whether there's enough evidence to convince him. The power of witness and conviction is in the use of the Word of God, not in our clever arguments and rationales. People don't realize it but they claim they know that there is no God, when this is a logical contradiction, which cannot be proved (a universal negative). Atheism is irrational and intellectually bankrupt and has no basis in fact--the only reason people deny God is out of moral concerns, not intellectual ones--all their questions might be answered and they still wouldn't believe, or they could witness miracles and still not believe. One must realize that all knowledge begins in a step of faith in which he cannot prove the premise; scientists are people of faith just as much as religious people, they just bet the farm that science has the answer and not God.
Faith is a gift of God and God expects us to use the faith we have if we are to get more; they are all judged according to the God that they did know and the moral principles they were aware of--our works. God can make a believer out of the most stubborn person and melt his heart into godly faith and repentance from stone to flesh (cf. Ezek. 36:26), as it were. When we judge God by weighing the evidence we put Him on trial and say He needs our approval and judgment to be legit. Evidence is only for the believer to strengthen the faith that is already there to help him realize the reasonableness of Christianity, as John Locke termed it, just like miracles strengthen and support faith, but note that faith doesn't come from miracles, but miracles from faith! This is a paradox!
No one can disbelieve in Christ due to lack of evidence, and there is never enough evidence for the stubborn and unwilling skeptic, who is on a power trip or mind game, and is engaging in intellectual arrogance, not intellectual honesty. God promises to bring faith by the hearing of the Word, i.e., preaching! We should never break faith in the Word as the means to faith, and not our clever proofs. God needs to open hearts and quicken faith within them for the person to come to saving faith. Just head knowledge won't do, because God requires believing in the heart with a love for the Lord. If anyone love not the Lord, he is anathema, maranatha, under a curse till Christ comes, according to 1 Cor. 16:26. We must realize that faith is given, not achieved and those who do believe are not smarter, wiser, more virtuous, nor intelligent than the infidel, but brought to faith by the grace of God and not their own merit or presalvation work. Grace from beginning to end, as Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
When the gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit falls on those listening and does a work of grace in their hearts--for we are all given a measure of faith and receive the same faith (cf. Rom. 12:3; 2 Pet. 1:1). Acts 18:27 says that we "believed through grace," and this was not because we were out-argued or intellectually convinced, but our hearts were changed by grace. We have nothing to boast of in God's presence! Faith is not a work or that would be the beginning of merit-based salvation! Jesus said that the "work of God is that you believe" in Him, and we are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done (cf. Titus 3:5), but by His purpose and grace alone. As Paul said, "grace reigns through righteousness," in Romans 5:21 (which means it's irresistible and sovereign).
In the final analysis, God is our judge--we are not His judge! We are the ones on trial and have been found guilty as sin in need of redemption, justification, reconciliation, and propitiation. The only ones who find the truth are those who admit they're lost and could be wrong. Christianity is fact-based and based on historical records, not fable, myth, hearsay, or man's origin and we don't need all the facts nor all the answers to come to faith, God expects a leap of faith to enter the kingdom and we must trust the Lord for the answers and come to know the Answerer (as Psalm 34:8 says, "Taste and see that the LORD is good," or that the proof of the pudding is in the eating)!
Our assurance is not based on conjecture, but a certainty, as sound as the Word itself. Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to God, should he be wrong: "Why didn't you give more evidence?" He admits there is evidence, after all! Like I said, there is never enough evidence for the hardened, stubborn heart who doesn't want to obey God, for Jesus said, "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know..." (cf. John 7:17). The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart! "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God..." (cf. Psalm 14:1, emphasis mine). Where's the skeptic's heart, not how smart is he? Just like Paul said in Romans 1, that people refuse to acknowledge God and be thankful and their foolish hearts are darkened--they became fools!
The fact is that God exists and people foolishly suppress what they know about Him due to the calloused hearts. Paul makes it clear in 2 Tim. 2:25 that repentance precedes knowledge of the truth and Augustine asserted that we believe in order to understand--faith precedes reason! In other words, we don't argue the way to God, but accept Him as a given and proceed from there to make deductions. God is the beginning point, not man as the Word says, "In the beginning God..." Athanasius said it well, "The only system of thought that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point. Proverbs 1:7 makes my point too: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..." We commence with God, we don't conclude with Him!
To explain just why we cannot engage in a battle of wits or evidence, is because people always interpret evidence in light of their worldview and the evidence they already accept and assume is true--what they do is "file" it away till they can reconcile or answer it to the satisfaction and worldview; they don't want to believe it or God would open their eyes (cf. John 7:17). We cannot reason to God, but with God on our side, we reason from God ("In the beginning God..."), for the Bible and logic are OUR weapon! Remember the ancient axiom: "All knowledge begins in faith." Soli Deo Gloria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)