What About The Evidence?

Every good scientist knows that the lack of evidence does not mean the evidence or proof of a lack. Bertrand Russell (an atheist who wrote a book, Why I Am Not a Christian), was asked what he would say to God if he were wrong, after all. He would retort: "Why didn't You give us more evidence?" The great legal expert, erstwhile atheist, and Harvard professor, Simon Greenleaf was challenged to consider the evidence. He became a believer! There is evidence (not proof though) against God. God has not coerced belief but has left it an open question. (If faith wasn't required, you could no more deny God than the sun.)

For instance, the problem of evil; there is no easy answer on either side--so don't claim that you have all the answers, because God requires faith ("For without faith it is impossible to please God...") and you don't need all the answers to take the leap of faith. However, an honest scientist must be willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads, leaving his presuppositions behind. However, there is NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL OBJECTIVITY WITH MANKIND.

Lee Strobel calls Christian belief a "properly basic" belief because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Christ can be experienced. N.B. that Einstein was not an atheist, but even philosophized about Him: "God doesn't play dice with the universe." Another famous scientist, Blaise Pascal said, "...earth indicates neither the total absence of God nor his manifest presence, but rather the presence a hidden God." The Bible says, "O that I knew where I might find Him" (Job 23:3). God wants to be found, but not by triflers, he promises in Jer. 29:13 that if we seek with our whole heart we will find Him. God's pet peeve with man is that he doesn't seek. We must admit with Isa. 65:1 that God is found by those that aren't looking for Him. Actually, He gets the credit. He found us--we didn't find Him!

But remember that faith is a choice. If someone says to prove God exists, tell him to prove He doesn't. Either way, it takes faith; there are no laboratory conditions for God! God wills that if you want to deny Him you can. One philosopher has said, "If there is no God, why is there so much good? And if there is a God, why so much evil? You have the ability to explain away God if you so desire. God has given us just enough light to have faith, and just enough darkness to deny Him if we want to. "But men loved darkness rather than light..." Where there's the will God will bless as He says in John 7:17, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God...."   Remember this from Isaiah: "Truly You are God who hide Yourself... (Is. 45:15).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Doctrine That Important?

Everyone has a doctrine, it is just a matter of how accurate it is. Jesus' doctrine was right but the Pharisees hated His doctrine, though they loved doctrine per se.  Doctrine separates Christians when they make it the end and not the means. The purpose of all doctrine is to lead us to a fuller understanding and relationship with God--not a reason to feel puffed up with knowledge. One can know very little doctrine and be very good at applying what he knows and be a very good Christian.

The disciples were "dedicated to the apostle's teaching [or doctrine]" (Acts 2:42). In other words, knowing doctrine is a means to an end, and not the objective itself (what we apply is more important than what we believe in theory). Some people like to divide Christians into two camps, for instance: Arminian vs. Calvinist. Both can be very fundamental, evangelical and conservative in their beliefs. In fact, there are some Arminians that know their God far better than some Calvinists.

It is not a good thing to get into the habit of labeling fellow believers, which can lead to judging. You can say, "I am a Calvinist!" But I can retort, "I am a Christian!" In summary, God isn't going to ask you what party you were a member of or how you interpreted the atonement--but of your love for and trust in Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Do Translations Matter?

Some cults (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons) and conservative circles prefer the Authorized or King James Version, as you may well know. This was the favorite translation of evangelicals for decades before the NIV replaced it in 1978. Still today many conservative circles swear by the KJV. I've heard it said that the KJV is the "original" and that all other translations are corruptions (actually Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into medieval English, not modern English though). I think this is a "Bible-club mentality" or exclusive spirit (which is what a cult has) and can lead to a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures.

First of all, the original translation into English was by John Wycliffe (not counting King Alfred translating some Psalms into old English or Anglo-Saxon), but those were before the printing press. Also, Tyndale (who prayed to God to open the eyes of the king of England--King Henry VIII) is considered the Father of the English version, and Coverdale finished his work. The Geneva Bible (the first one in regular type and verses) was the most popular one of the 16th century and England was not happy that the Bishop's Bible was not as popular so they commissioned a new translation. The 54 scholars who translated the Authorized Version relied upon this former work heavily. Tyndale was a student of Luther's and relied upon Luther for his translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it is not the translation per se that is infallible and inerrant, but the original autograph--and these are not extant today. If you really want to be accurate in your study, you really should not just go to the KJV or any other version, but to the original Koine (common Greek), Aramaic, or Hebrew text! (Exegesis involves a working knowledge of the original tongues.) Modern translations rely on more accurate and better manuscripts than the translators of the Authorized Version had.

I think that one should read a translation that he feels comfortable with and "graduate" to more sophisticated or scholarly Bibles as he matures. I don't think one should base his doctrine upon a certain translation and I don't think any major doctrine depends upon any certain translation--God protects His Word, and that means you can get saved reading the Roman Catholic Bible or a Jehovah's Witness can be shown wrong from his own version (New World Translation). The "Englishisms" in the KJV is hard to understand by beginning Bible students, and some words are archaic and have changed meaning since the Elizabethan English days of 1611. The New King James Version stays loyal to the KJV and just removes the "Thees and Thous" et al., and the words that are now obsolete or vague (or have changed the meaning) now, making it more readable, but staying loyal to the beautiful language as much as possible. Remember this: The goal is to get you into the Word!

There is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. A paraphrase isn't a literal word for word, but translated thoughts into idioms or appropriate phrases instead of being literal, even if it is not understandable. There is always a balance to be drawn in how literal to be and where to paraphrase a thought to give the idea. We simply don't understand some of the expressions, idioms, or euphemisms of antiquity and need to relate them to our century. Newer translations usually rely upon better manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators.

There is a niche for every translation out there and God has a place of them. The NASB is considered to be very literal, while the Living Bible is a paraphrase, and the New Living Translation is cross between the two, and the NIV is a translation that looks at thoughts more than words for an easier understanding but keeps the KJV where it is considered accurate. Sometimes being literal means we can't understand it; the goal is to understand and apply!

It is good to have a favorite translation; let it be an educated or advised decision, though. For instance, some well known Bible teachers prefer the NASB as being the most literal. The next best thing to knowing the original languages is having a favorite translation, but know why it is your favorite. It is not good to just compare translations and pick out the one that suits your fancy or is the most convenient to your school of theology. Remember, it is the autographs in the original tongue that are inerrant, and all translations are fallible.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Did God Die?

I will use a syllogistic proof (a major premise, a minor premise, leading to a conclusion) that shows God as dying on our behalf on the cross: Christ is God; Christ died on the cross; hence God died on the cross. Now some may balk at this kind of logic and seem to think that it is impossible for God to die; but what is here, but separation from the Father and Holy Spirit, in a cry of dereliction, taking on the sins of the world until Christ pronounces tetelestai or "it is finished," [a done deal!].

You have to look at your definitions of God and to see the logic. The sky went black from 12 noon till three o'clock that day as the Father could not look on the Son bearing our sins. Since God is infinite, we cannot put Him in a box and confine Him to logic that makes His Godhead understandable to us, but as the song goes, "Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God, should'st die for me!" Lee Strobel refers to "Deicide" as what we did to Christ on the cross.

If Jesus was only a man the sacrifice would be imperfect and insufficient for us. The triune God works together to accomplish a unified plan and goal. The Father purposes and plans, the Son implements and carries through, the Holy Spirit applies and completes the plan. Jesus experienced separation from the Father and in this sense, He died and wondered about His being forsaken. This is a paradox because in one sense God died for us and in another sense, God judged sin in Jesus as our substitute and is very much alive and working to preserve the cosmos.

As long as you define your terms you can make this statement. God is three persons in one essence. Jesus is two natures in one person, neither separated, confused, mixed, nor divided. He is not a deified man nor a humanized god or theanthropos, but the infinite God-Man, perfect God, perfect Man, very God of very God, and very man of very man (not a God in human disguise, nor a man with divine attributes). Jesus' two natures can be distinguished, but not separated; due to the hypostatic union.

In the final analysis, it depends on how you define death.  Christ's Spirit was indeed separated from His body and when we die our spirits are separated from our bodies too.  Christ never was separated in His divine nature from the Trinity but lost fellowship during His passion on the cross.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You Seeker-Sensitive?

Some hard-line conservative preachers don't want the churches to be seeker-sensitive. But it is to the church that the keys have been given, and the door has been opened. The church is, of course, all believers; but when they gather together they have special anointing and Spirit-power. It should be so Spirit-led that a nonbeliever could come into the service and proclaim, "O my! The Lord is present here!" We need to knock some people out of their comfort zones with lightning bolts; prophetic utterances always make some people uncomfortable--we don't want ear-tickling preachers, who only say what people want to hear, and stay away from controversy. (To avoid controversy, is to avoid Christ Himself [Read John Stott's book, Christ, the Controversialist]).

Many preachers are against pragmatic services (doing what is expedient to meet their needs--if it works it's true!) and tend to just view what they see as biblical means to the end as ordained of God (as diehard traditionalists), and God will only bless that. By pragmatic, I don't mean that the end justifies the means, or that it is just practical, or that one doesn't look at the principles (are they really biblical or tradition?) involved, but the result--pragmatics is much more common in politics--and results matter. (Billy Graham calls adjusting our outreach to the seekers as "contextualization.") I have heard it said by missiologists that the best theories are the ones that work.

What I'm saying, is that something is not working in the American paradigm of singing, liturgy, sermon, prayer, communion, et cetera-which is the European paradigm transplanted here. We need to be more inclusive and not so exclusive, like that we are the only church in town and we are right and the others are wrong. This Bible-club mentality is easily spotted: No one church has a corner on the market of truth! However, Chuck Swindoll says to not drink of just one fountain, or you will lose your discernment, so don't give the impression of being an exclusive club or "cult."

If they like us, they will like Jesus--we are the mirrors of God's glory, and they either see Jesus in us or they don't--people aren't that blind. "That they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven." I'm not saying we need to open a coffee shop in every church to be more social, or to have plays or concerts or testimonies, or special speakers to attract a crowd. What I am saying is what Paul said in 1 Cor. 9:22, "I have become all things to all people...."

Everyone can reach someone and if you are in your right evangelical outreach, God will bless your witness. Just let the spiritual gifts be manifested, and let people discover their place and God-given talents and gifts. There should be a place for everyone to serve and/or grow. We need to be a little more utilitarian, which means doing what is useful--not the greatest good for the greatest number, what some think and give it a bad reputation.

A person should be able to come to a church with the hope of getting saved if nothing else; and the door should be open. The primary foci are to edify the body and to worship the Lord, but we can't forget those who are thirsty and are coming to the fountain for a drink. Even though the mission field is primarily in the highways and byways of our towns and in our homes and workplaces, the opportunity is wide-open at the church and no one should ever leave, without having had that chance at salvation. Rom. 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word."

So, we cannot abandon that format nor de-emphasize it. Paul urged Timothy to do the work of an evangelist! We should all strive to be churches like Philadelphia, which wasn't reprimanded for anything but had an open door. (To be just content to be doctrinally sound at the expense of love or life is not good. We don't want to be like the church of Sardis that had a reputation that is was alive, but it was dead.

The guest should say, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the House of the Lord!'" (Ps. 122:1). "A day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere" (Ps.84:10). Remember, though, that a church service is not a performance or a show or a place to get entertained, but a meeting of the body of Christ. But the person who says he didn't get anything out of the worship service went for the wrong reason. The right attitude is Ps. 84:2 which says, "I longed and even yearned for the courts of the Lord."

We should be seeker-sensitive even when taking offering (which is a part of the worship) by announcing that visitors shouldn't feel obliged to give, that they are our guests. And Jesus said His house would be a house of prayer, and prayer should be emphasized even if the guest feels uncomfortable--there are things we don't compromise on. Remember Augustine said, "In essentials [nonnegotiables] unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Indwells The Christian?

Most Christians will testify that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and hence the third person of the triune God does indeed indwell us. But do you realize that Christ himself has taken up residence if indeed you are born again? Rev. 3:20 which pictures Christ knocking at the door of our heart is a case in point where Jesus seeks to live in our heart and not just in our head as head-knowledge. Paul says in Gal. 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me...." We should come to the realization that not only is Christ God Almighty but that He takes up residence within us.

You may say that the word for "in" is to be used figuratively and not literally (Scripture warns against quarreling about words in 1 Tim. 6:4 and 2 Tim. 2:14), but Scripture after Scripture verifies this doctrine, and the clarity of Scripture forces us to take the obvious meaning, rather than argue over the meaning of words, "which only ruins the hearers." Col. 1:27 says that the mystery is "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col. 3:11 says, "...but Christ is all and in all." Rom. 8:10 says, "But if Christ is in you...." Eph. 3:17 says, "So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." Gal. 4:19 says, "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...." This concept is not taught from this vantage point, simply because most Christians never actualize the role of Christ in their lives. When others see Christ in you, you will know what I mean.

The union with Christ is called the mystical union, or the unio mystica in Latin. If you want to believe that this is only in theory or figurative, I won't call you a heretic; I'll just think that you don't quite get it--Jesus wants to be real to you! In a sense you are denying the Trinity unwittingly, because Jesus, being God, is omnipresent and by definition, there is no conflict with Him living in our hearts (Eph. 3:17 says, "that He may dwell in our hearts by faith")--or do you deny that possibility, thinking that Christ is limited to a physical body in Heaven?

Though Christ became a man He is still, and always was and will be God. (The finite cannot contain the infinite.) "Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and forever." During his earthly humiliation He merely gave up the privileges of Deity and His independent usage of His attributes; He never gave up any of His divine attributes--He is no less God than the Father or the Holy Spirit. And so, Jesus is physically in Heaven seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, but in spirit, He is omnipresent--just like the Father. Jesus is here in a special way when two or more gather in His name or when we share the Lord's Table as He promised--this is another proof of His omnipresence (N.B. though Christ is in a body, He is not limited by it in His Deity).

The Monophysite heresy said that Christ was either a humanized god or a deified man, but not perfect man--perfect God or the infinite God-Man, as is taught in Scripture. The Chalcedonian definition of Christ was that He had two natures in one person which was neither mixed, confused, separated, or divided. He is vere homo, vere Deus or truly man, truly God, joined together in a hypostatic union, beyond our comprehension (referred to as the unio mysticall).  'We are not to confuse the nature nor divide the person!  

Martin Luther was attacked for his belief of what became known as "ubiquity." His view was that Christ was physically present in the communion elements, which lead to the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. These were wrong views of His omnipresence and I will not fault Luther for not being right on everything--he was human.

Let's not forget the Father, who also takes up residence spiritually. Eph. 4:6 says, "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Yes, the entire Godhead indwells the believer! (1 John 4:15 says, "Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.) A pertinent exhortation is John 15:5 as follows: "Abide in Me and I in you...."This doctrine is the test that Paul used in 2 Cor. 13:5 which says, "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.    Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you? Unless indeed you fail the test."  We are also exhorted to test ourselves at the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11:28.

In summary, we should be as confident as Martin Luther that Christ lives in us. Billy Graham tells of how Martin Luther overcame the devil: "When the devil comes to the door, Jesus answers it, and when he asks for me, Jesus says, 'Martin doesn't live here anymore--I do!'"   Soli Deo Gloria!

Scientific Creationism?

It is impossible to have a science of creation because no scientist was there to observe the event that only God and the sons of God saw. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" An event must also be repeatable to be valid scientifically. The only true knowledge we have on creation is the Bible or from theology, which we believe is a divine revelation--another accurate way to truth. When scientists claim they know how the earth was formed, it is only conjecture and induction and certainly not infallible. They hypothesize and theorize, but cannot know for absolute certain. "By faith, we understand that the universe was created...."

Now there are some Christians who don't believe in a literal 24-hour day in the Genesis 1 account. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day so it might be postulated that a day could be any length of time--like when we say, "Let's call it a day!" There is also the gap theory that says there is a pause between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically this could be interpreted as a title and then an explanation of the opening remark. The Bible doesn't intend to tell how long it took to create the earth, only that God created it.

Now, as far as man being created on the sixth day, it looks like Eve was also created on the 6th day--and I thought Adam had to name all the animals and get time to get lonely first before he met his match. Another discrepancy is that when you take everything literally, there is no time for the angelic rebellion. Were there angels before there was heaven? By the time of the temptation in the garden of Eden, there was already evil present in the cosmos.

The entire six days is looked on like one day later in Genesis ("On the day that I created...") As you may know, "day" in the Bible doesn't always refer to a 24 hour period, but may even be a thousand years, as in the "day of the Lord."

In summary: We have to be tolerant of Christians who believe scientific findings that don't directly contradict the Bible, e.g., evolution. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it does say something scientific, it is inerrant. Keeping the main thing the main thing, we should be glad that one believes God did create the cosmos and not quibble over words or doctrines that have no relation to the Christian life, and are therefore considered "minor" doctrines.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Chose Whom?

The question is whether we chose Christ first before God chose us, or that God chose us because He saw that we would choose us (called the prescient view); the former being that we become the elect when we get saved, instead of being born elect, and the latter that God merely saw something meritorious in us that prompted election (which would be the beginning of salvation by works). The election is unconditional, meaning that there was nothing in us that God saw to make Him elect us. The answer is that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world and that we were elect and predestined from our conception to be saved. "For the elect obtained unto it, and the rest were hardened...." Christ said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you... [John 15:16]."

 Fact is, we never would've chosen Christ if He hadn't intervened and poured out His grace on us to make us willing (yes, God can make us willing to do His will--see Psa. 110:3 and Phil. 2:13). The miracle is not that all don't get saved, but that anyone gets saved--if God would've chosen to save only one He would've been justified.

Jesus said in John 15:5 that without Him we can do nothing. That means that we couldn't even choose Christ apart from grace. The doctrine of total depravity or total inability attests to this fact--all of our nature is infected and depraved with sin, and we are as bad off as we can be. God gives us all a choice, but that does not mean we can choose without grace. Pelagius, the heretic, argued that God can only hold us responsible for what we can do, and this is what people are saying when they say that if the non-elect can't choose, that they have an excuse (that they were on the wrong list). The Word says in Rom. 1:20, "...They are without excuse." The blame is theirs, not God's. Romans 9:20 says, "O man, who are you to reply against God...?" God is no man's debtor, says Luther; and He didn't have to save anyone, just as He did not spare the angels who sinned. "...Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).

Some say that election makes God look like the worst of despots--meaning the condemned never had a chance. John 5:40 says that "you were not willing." Do you remember the old poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley? "I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate." Well, sorry to say that God is the master of your destiny and the conqueror of your soul if you are saved." God never gives up His sovereignty in order to get someone saved. "Many are called, but few are chosen." Acts 13:48 says, "For as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

One of the slogans of the Reformation was soli Deo Gloria, which means "to God alone be the glory." If we choose Christ on our own ability, apart from God's help, then we get some of the glory--but God wants all the glory. It all depends on whether you see salvation as a human achievement or divine accomplishment.

In summary, we owe our faith to our election, not our election to our faith.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Seeking The Baptism?

NB:  Nowhere in Scripture are we admonished to "seek the baptism!"  What we ought to do is to "seek the Lord while He may be found."

Are we to seek to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? I'm sure you have come across some preacher who has challenged you about this on TV or radio but has you ever wondered if it is doctrinally accurate?

First of all, Jesus is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Secondly, baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism in the Holy Spirit is also the same thing. Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not baptize, as is commonly claimed from a mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13 which says, "by one Spirit you were all baptized." Actually, the Greek says, "in one Spirit...we were all baptized." The reason the translators put in "by" instead of "in" or "with" is because there would be two "ins" in one sentence, making for confusion.

Some Pentecostals believe that there is more than one baptism and especially that it is subsequent to regeneration. Eph. 4:5 says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." This is not referring to water baptism, as some would maintain, but to the baptism by Jesus at salvation. 2 Pet. 1:3 says that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness: There is nothing more to seek (except a spiritual gift, which is commanded). There is no second blessing! The point of contention here is that there are many fillings, enduements, unctions, and anointings; however, there is only one baptism. Actually, the blessing is not only manifested in tongues, but in prophecy or any spiritual gift.

The false teaching is that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is always testified by unknown tongues or glossolalia. They get this from experience or from taking doctrine from narratives in Acts like Cornelius or the Ephesians instead of from didactic portions that contradict their teaching. This early period was a transition period for the church and the "usual" conversion experience wasn't known yet. The principle of hermeneutics is to interpret the narrative in light of the didactic, not vice versa. We don't make our doctrines based on our experiences either, no matter how convincing--this leads to mysticism and heresy. The only sure knowledge we have is Holy Writ.

There is no 2nd-class Christian (there are some who don't know their gift, though). The Pentecostal view puts us in we/them mentality and separates believers and makes them judgmental and jealous rather than one in the Spirit. We are never to make our doctrine based upon our experiences but test our experiences by sound doctrine. Birds of a feather flock together, right? Well, that is what happens in charismatic circles where ignorance of sound doctrine often prevails and experience is key. I'm sure something happened to them if they claim a second blessing, but it is highly probable that they were having a revival or even getting saved in the first place. It has been said that revival is a baptism on a large scale; I say they are fillings or salvation on a large scale. Let us not dichotomize Christians where the Bible doesn't: baptized and non-baptized Christians. No Christian has a right to feel superior.

Finally, Pentecostals will tell you that tongues are for everyone, and will the Father give you a stone if you ask for bread? However, the Bible tells us that in 1 Cor. 12:11 that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He wills (that is proof that the baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be when you speak in tongues, because the Holy Spirit gives tongues and Jesus baptizes!) We are to seek the greater gifts, such as prophecy--not tongues. There is no biblical, exegetical proof that in Jude where it says praying in the Spirit means we are to pray in tongues or have a private prayer language--this is hogwash. We pray in groans too deep for words sometimes and if you want to say that is a prayer language, which only God understands, that is fine.   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Proves Our Love For God?

"For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). "...And they spoke the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31b). When we have the filling of the Holy Spirit (God grants anointing at His discretion to do His will) we will be led to share the good news of Christ, and will have what's called the "can't help-its." We speak of what is in our heart and our tongue, which cannot be controlled, betrays us. 2 Cor. 4:13 says, "And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I believed and therefore I spoke,' we also believed and therefore speak." Philemon 6 is a blessing on us to have the ability to share the gospel.  (See also Psalm 51:15:  "O LORD, open thou mine lips....")   The door of utterance must be opened, it isn't automatic--we are not to be "machine-gun" evangelists (aiming en masse and not individually targeted), but "sharp-shooters (at a specific target)." And so witnessing is a sure sign of love for God; it is obeying the Great Commission.

Some people describe their conversion experience like "falling in love" with Jesus. This is commendable, but usually what the case is, is that this wears off, like a honeymoon in a marriage, and things become more normal. (However, it is wonderful to be around a baby Christian that has just found salvation.) When one is in love one supposedly talks about that person (but hopefully he talks to that person more). One does talk about things he is interested in or cares about--if you love sports, you will discuss it. But one can love and not talk about someone but to someone. For instance, I love my mom very much and talk to her virtually every day for lengthy discussions, but I do not go around talking "about" her. If you are married, do you want your wife talking about you or talking to you? Actually, you would rather have her submit than talk about you.

1 Sam. 15:22 says that "to obey is better than sacrifice...." Jesus also said, "If you love Me you will keep My commandments." Nowhere does it say if you love Jesus you will talk about Him (Jesus said to Peter, "Do you love Me?...Feed My sheep!)--it is implied that if you witness and share the gospel that He will come up, but you don't necessarily go on a mission to talk exclusively about Jesus, like a Jesus freak. A balanced Christian talks about many subjects, and lets God open doors and waits for His timing--earning the right to be heard, not forcing oneself on someone.

I spent several minutes today talking about King David; however, I cannot say that I love him--I love the Lord. (Just talking about something doesn't mean you love the subject--you may just like to talk, and this even applies to discuss theological topics.) "Falling in love with the Lord" is not biblical terminology. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him, to feed His sheep, not to talk about him, there is a difference.

If you fell in love is past tense, "do you love" is present tense. The point is, is that we are not to live in the past on some experience but to evaluate the here and now. One could fall in love, and also out of love to extend the analogy. The unbeliever is a "son of disobedience," not a silent person. Talk can be cheap and some people are just talkers or have the gift of gab. We are to love not in word or in a tongue, but in deed and in truth, according to 1 John 3:18. We are to be a people zealous of good works and to love the brethren and so prove our discipleship.

A relationship based upon emotion is shallow, indeed; God wants saving faith that results in true heartfelt love, not emotionalism per se (faith, not emotionalism pleases God). There is a command to delight in the Lord through: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the delights of your heart" (Ps. 37:4). This called Christian "hedonism" by John Piper; true faith always results in love for the Lord.   Soli Deo Gloria!