Are we there yet?

I’m sitting in a bar at Newark International Airport drinking Stella (you’ve got to love France if not the French) Artois larger. I’m rather sober though, as I undertook the (possibly ghoulish) service of visiting Ground Zero for the first time this afternoon. It’s a big hole, with a half built skyscraper in it. The thing that got me were the scars on all of the surrounding buildings. One can see the trajectories -- right in the walls -- of the “micrometeorites” that showered down at great velocity They're now embedded into the brickwork of adjacent buildings. My prayer was short “God please let these souls find their way to you”.

That single act of destruction has changed us, seemingly permanently, but nothing lasts for ever (does it?)

Incidentally -- a six buck toll to come in down the Lincoln tunnel but free going out on the Holland? What is that all about? (And fer goodness sake's what on Earth is a "Ped X'ing"? - some kind of People's Republic of China official?)

You wrote:

Our being "born again" is a sovereign act of God himself; Grace bestowed
upon the truly repentent (sic. sp? – ed.) who comes to realize the utter hopelessness of their own efforts and turn in complete trust (not just belief) in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

The Bible teaches that one's eternal salvation is based on this singular act of regeneration, bestowed by God.

Question: who does good choose to bestow this blessing upon? Is it anything that the individual does that qualifies them for this blessing? If it’s not, then that’s pretty bad luck for those that don’t get picked, they have to spend an eternity in agony. That’s just not fair. Wouldn’t you agree?

Also this “chosen by God” doesn’t strike me as very probable – someone born in a Muslim country is far less likely to have this blessing of being chosen bestowed upon them. Or, does God choose them to be born in a Muslim country thus causing them to have very little chance of salvation? (Again grossly unfair to my REASONing … but if I suspend reason then all is “ok” again).

Ok I have a further question for your good self on this – and it is related to my assertion that Christianity is a time-dependent test.

Take the following scenario if you please:

1. Atheist lives a non-believing non-Christian non-regenerated life
2. Atheist dies and all becomes clear – Jesus Christ exists – He is “the way” and the atheist converts on the spot. The Atheist is truly repentent.
3. Does the atheist now go to Heaven and if not why not?

NCAA on the TV, Washington vs. West Virginia .. your old stamping ground buddy!

Current Song: Someone in the bar is humming a Britney Spears song … “One more time” or something.

Salvation, Testing and Growth

You laid out the scenario whereby a serial killer repents, is "in Christ" for ten years, then backslides and resumes his killing spree. He dies without repenting again. You asked, "Does the killer go to heaven?"

I'll ask the question a different way: Was the killer ever truly born again?

Simply saying, "I believe in Jesus" does not necessarily make one born again. Nor does responding to an alter call, or filling out a membership card, or going to church regularly, or even doing good things in this world. Our being "born again" is a sovereign act of God himself; Grace bestowed upon the truly repentent who comes to realize the utter hopelessness of their own efforts and turn in complete trust (not just belief) in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

The Bible teaches that one's eternal salvation is based on this singular act of regeneration, bestowed by God. The Bible further teaches that salvation, once granted, is never taken away.

So, for the serial killer, it is altogether possible (and probable) that his ten year span of being "in Christ" wasn't that at all; that he had not really been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Here's the key -- the fact that he resumed his sinful ways, without apparent concern for doing so, suggests that he was never truly born again to begin with. The truly regenerated person takes on a different view of sin and God and feels the conviction of sin more strongly than before. This is the thrust of the book of James -- one's faith is not based on one's works, but one's faith is demonstrated by one's works. A person who claims to be "in Christ" yet is an awful, hateful, sinful person is not demonstrating that faith.

Note: one must be careful here to draw a reasonable distinction between "permanent backsliding" and everyday struggles and temptations. A regenerate person is not perfect; they will continue to sin. It is the attitude towards that sin that is telling. If a person sins and seeks help from God to avoid the sin, then that's a telling sign of regeneration. If a person sins and doesn't care if they sin, does so boldly (as is the case with a serial killer), then that tells a different story, doesn't it?

This is where the distinction between belief and trust becomes so critical. The classic analogy is this: I can believe that a bottle of antibiotics will take care of my life-threatening illness. But until I actually consume the pills that belief does not save my life. It is only when I truly trust that the pills will do what they claim that I receive the benefit. So too with Jesus -- I may believe that Jesus existed; I may believe that Jesus was crucified; I may even believe that he "died for my sins" and was resurrected. But until I come to completely trust in Jesus' saving Grace and honestly and sincerely ask Him to take control of my life, that belief is just intellectual assent. It is akin to me sitting at the kitchen table, eyeing the bottle of antibiotics.

I doubt Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al believed Jesus was God incarnate and died for their sins. I am fairly certain they didn't place their whole trust in Christ as their savior.

If salvation, once granted, is not removed, then what's with all the testing in the Bible? Testing is a way of promoting strength and maturity in the believer. God uses tests -- small and big -- to provide a way for a new believer to grow stronger in the faith.

Note: here in Arizona there's something called the "Biosphere," an experiment conducted ten or so years ago whereby a completely contained ecosystem was developed to experiment with self-sustaining environments. The trees that were planted in that bubble endured no wind. They grew to a certain height and toppled over. They discovered that the trunks of the trees did not have certain strength-enhancing structures that their counterparts in nature had. It was because there was no wind; the trees never had to develop strength. They later installed fans to simulate wind.

So it is with us. We need tests to develop a deeper trust in Christ, to seek His help rather than ours, to see Him as our sovereign Lord. That is what Isaiah 48:10 is about; Job endured severe tests as a way of deepening his faith; Jonah as well; Paul, Peter and John too.

* * *
No, Satan will not go to Heaven. Demons are fallen angels, and the Bible speaks of their having made their decision. They get no opportunity for redemption. We do, through Christ.

Will Satan go to Heaven?

Broadband here is so fast as compared to the UK. Here I can send a 4mb file via email in less than 5 seconds. The hotel 4mb free service makes my 512K at home seem crummy - I feel like the UK is in the dark ages!

In “The Beautiful Simplicity of the Gospel” you wrote that Christianity is not a test. I started mulling on the problem of whether or not Christianity was a test in August 2003 and I came to the conclusion some time in the summer of 2004 that indeed it was a test. I know that such a view is not the generally acceptable view held by Christians. There are hints to my conclusion in the Bible too, in fact you quote from Romans 8 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

The key phrase I’d like to focus on here is “those who are in Christ Jesus”.

What does being in “Christ Jesus” mean to you?

To me it means “those who pass the daily tests to remain in Christ Jesus”. I believe it to be time dependent.

Take the following scenario if you would kind sir:

1. Serial killer kills serially
2. Serial killer repents, believes, and is now in “Christ Jesus”
3. Serial killer spends 10 years in “Christ Jesus”
4. Serial killer then resumes killing spree
5. Serial killer dies before repenting again

Does the killer go to Heaven? In addition, what if someone who is currently in "Christ Jesus" commits the unforgiveable sin (which you and I both know, but would not tempt anyone else to commit it by pointing it out). When dealing with Biblical inerrancy one has to be dogmatic. Which is one of the reasons I am not an “inneracist” as that allows me to avoid being dogmatic. Dogmatism does not fit with the relativity of truth to God.

Just to believe in Christ is not enough. Satan and Hitler both believe(d) in Christ. I assume that after the events in Revelation Satan does not go to Heaven. I don't know about Hitler.

One of my favourite quotes from The Bible is from Isaiah:

See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the
furnace of affliction.

Isaiah 48:10 (New International Version)

Just search for the word “test” or “tested” in The Bible my good friend.

The other thing I must make clear is that I am not attacking your cornerstones in any way (I could not and would not), to believe is a beautiful thing – I just love to debate with you.

More on your #3 later !

Current Song: “Born to Run” – Bruce Springsteen (it's allowed, I am in the USA).

Cornerstone #3 - Nature of God: Holy

Having proposed my first two "cornerstones" and elaborated on them -- whether or not to your satisfaction I'll allow you to determine -- allow me now to establish my third. It has to do with the nature of God himself. That's a daunting area of exploration, given that almost by definition he is unknowable to us, there being such a wide gulf between his nature and ours. But that's why my second cornerstone, the Bible as God's special revelation, is so critical. Because if we are to hold to cornerstone #2 as true, then we can discern some things about God's nature.

That nature is, in a word, "Holy." That word has little meaning to us today, as it's not used much except in this context, and the meaning is for most people something along the lines of "righteous."

But I have come to understand that the meaning of the word "Holy" has a more fundamental meaning, and that meaning is "Set Apart" or "Different." And that's something we as contemporary humans suffer from, I think -- a mistaken understanding that God is somehow "like us," or "comparable to us." When in fact, he is not. He is quite different. Staggeringly different.

This is what the Bible tells us ... over and over again. Moses, a man who the Bible portrays as perhaps the most righteous man in God's eyes ever, is prohibited from seeing God's face (in other words, his full glory). Moses is permitted to see only God from behind, and even then Moses' face radiates the glory he witnessed, so much so that the Israelites cried out and demanded Moses place a veil over his face. Isaiah, in a vision, sees something of the glory of God and cries out, '"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."' (Isaiah 6:5, NIV)

In all cases those in the Bible who are given the opportunity to see something of God's glory immediately see the striking contrast with themselves. The glorious perfection of God Almighty compared to the lowliness of our condition.

When the Bible speaks of "fearing" the Lord, this is what it refers to -- not that we must live in fear of some capricious and arbitrary harm, but that we must understand that mighty glory of Him and the pitiful nothingness of us by comparison.

Unfortunately, we no longer do that much, do we? We view God as some amiable grandfather type, welcoming everyone to come or go in God's presence as they please, treating God with regard or contempt ... it doesn't matter because God will chuckle and forgive, like a good grandfather always does to his preciocious grandchildren.

We have, in effect, lowered God to our level. Worse, we have elevated ourselves above God.

I assert that the Christian faith makes little sense absent a view of God as utterly above us, beyond our comprehension of goodness, perfection and glory. If God were little more than a mallable grandfather type, little different from ourselves, willing to forgive and forget nearly every transgression, why then would someone have to die on our behalf? That makes no sense.

I firmly believe that the more one comes to comprehend the vast gulf between themselves and God, the more they will come to appreciate what was done on their behalf by God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ. Only then will our sins be seen as what they are -- requiring a just response from a perfect God.

How truly amazing it is when one grasps on the one hand the Glory of God, and on the other God's willingness to humble himself in the form of man, to be ridiculed and abused and nailed to a cross, all on our behalf, so that through the sacrifice of Christ our sins will be atoned for, forgiven not through our efforts but through Christ's and Christ's alone.

So, there is cornerstone #3 -- the nature of God as "Holy" -- beyond measure different from us, utterly perfect in every way. By comparison, we are nothing ... which takes me to my next cornerstone -- very much related to this -- which will be in a separate post.

The Beautiful Simplicity of the Gospel

There were many, many aspects of your most recent post that caught my attention and piqued my desire to respond. But one in particular I simply can't let slip by. You wrote:

Our souls are constantly being tested for suitability for Heaven, if we fail the test, we don’t to Heaven, we go to Hell. If things are not a test then we could live any which way without concern for the consequences could we not?

No, dear brother, no. I love you dearly, but no.

It is here we come to the very heart of the Gospel, which means "Good News." Life is not a series of tests that each determine whether we go to heaven or not. That would be a form of daily legalism that would haunt us to our grave. That is what Paul wrote of in that painful lament in Romans 7:21-24:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (Romans 7:21-24, NIV)

In other words, Paul is saying in effect, "I try -- honestly I do -- to do what's right, but I keep failing, time and again. I can't ever seem to scale this mountain; it is too high. Whatever shall I do? The more I strive, the more I realize what a wicked sinner I am. Oh, dear God ... who will save me? Who?"

Paul answers his own question in what many consider the very peak of the mountaintop of the Christian faith:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, NIV, emphasis added)

I'll paraphrase, in my words:

At the moment Christ died on the cross, the accumulated sins of man were laid on him and Christ -- God's eternal Son -- bore the full weight of God's wrath for the sins of man. Those who know they cannot earn their way to heaven due to the heavy weight of their sins may trust that Christ has done all the work, and that we only need believe that is the case -- that Christ did the work and that we cannot. And by trusting in him we not only gain forgiveness for our sins, but gain the full righteousness of Christ. At that moment we are "born again," becoming true children of God, and are looked upon by God as completely righteous as Jesus Christ himself. And it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, who comes into our hearts and takes up permament residence, that I we might walk the journey of the Christian faith, if we are to just place our full trust and faith in Jesus Christ.

I can't type further without giving thanks to God my Father for so rich a blessing as this. All glory to Him who is our creator, our sustainer, our redeemer and our Lord.

So there are no daily tests. Once we are granted God's "Grace" -- his forgiveness, offered to us not because we earned it but because we simply gave up trying and placed our trust at Jesus' feet -- we are forever His, never to be lost.

This is supernatural stuff, to be sure. This soars well above the reach of any logical constructions or scientific inquiry. This is the Gospel -- the beautiful, glorious, unmatched gift from God our Father through his Son Jesus Christ. Amen!

What stops us from thereafter living simply a life of debauchery, knowing as we apparently do that our salvation is assured? The true believer -- the one who really understands the magnitude of God's mercy in pardoning us and granting us eternal life -- will strive to live their lives in grateful submission to Christ's will. He or she will do so by surrending to the Spirit who lives within them, allowing He who is the Spirit of God to guide our lives. Sure, backsliding and tripping up will occur, but the truly born-again will forever keep their eye on Jesus and strive to get back on "The Way" and walk again with Christ our Lord.

You also write:

Christians expect to go to Heaven, and for others not to go to Heaven.

Perhaps, but the true Christian -- the one who knows what Grace is all about -- will pray fervently for all people to come to Christ and gain eternal life. Christianity is not an exclusive club, though many who call themselves "Christians" treat it as such. The offer of God's Grace through Christ Jesus is available to all who truly turn from their sins and accept Christ as their saviour. That means they give up -- they stop trying to "earn" their salvation -- and simply turn to Christ and say, "I cannot do it. You have done it. Please come into my life and take possession of me, dear Lord."

That is the Gospel -- there is nothing like it in all of history, in all the world. No other religion in the world has the concept of Grace -- unmerited forgiveness granted to those who believe that Christ bore their sins and truly trust in the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.

* * *
I am reminded of a story I once heard, about a small boy who comes upon an old-time revival group packing up their gear. The boy rushes up the minister, who is busy folding tents, and asks, "Pastor, what must I do to gain eternal life?"

The pastor answered, "You're too late."

The boy was crestfallen. "Because the revival is over?" He asked.

"No." The pastor replied. "You're too late because someone already did everything that was necessary for you to gain eternal life. That someone was Jesus Christ."

Thanks be to God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ!

Amen!

Skydiving

Hey the Poughkeepsie Marriott has free broadband now, I haven’t been here since the year 2000, now that is progress !

Thank you so much for sharing your Cornerstone #2 with me.

You said:

"The Christian faith cannot be properly grounded without a belief that the Bible contains fundamental truths as revealed by God himself."

Your choice of the term “properly grounded” here -- the word “proper” -- is interesting. For such a fundamental cornerstone is there an absolute definition of “proper”? Isn’t "proper" relative?

“… then why would God point to Scripture as Truth when it was in fact corrupt, something He would certainly know was the case?”

My response to that is – fundamentally -- Christians expect to go to Heaven, and for others not to go to Heaven. There are so many aspects of the doctrine that reveal it to be a test of some sorts. Our souls are constantly being tested for suitability for Heaven, if we fail the test, we don’t to Heaven, we go to Hell. If things are not a test then we could live any which way without concern for the consequences could we not?

Maybe God knows exactly what is going on. Consider this:
God allows his word to be corrupted God allows it to be seen that his word has been corrupted (to me this is obvious!) God tests his faithful followers like this:

“Can you see that my original word has been corrupted? Can you see that I would never want you to kill eachother? Can you see that I would never command that? Can you see that I do not want you to fear me?”
If the answer comes back as “No Lord, The Bible is 100% Absolute Unadulterated Truth”. Then the Lord says:

“Sorry, I can’t have you in Heaven, only people who can think (as well as worship) are allowed in. You failed the test."

Unfortunately I read somewhere when I was a kid “Never follow a leader without asking your own questions”.

And anyway, isn't it pointless to ask "Why would God ... ?", because then we're applying human reason to Him?

Or let's say Bill believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday and said "X." John also believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday, but Jesus said "Y," and "X" and "Y" are mutually exclusive. Is one right, one wrong? Or are both right? Or perhaps both wrong?

All of the above! I love it! This is great. This is the other way to believe in Jesus, and for me the somewhere of where I ground my faith.

And this is how the Bible was written also. Various authors had things revealed to them, some contradictory, as the atheist text “101 Contradictions In The Bible” points out (more like 30 contradictions I think). The answer to all of the contradictions is: God moves in mysterious ways of course.

Current song: “Live Like You Were Dying” – Tom McGraw (I heard this for the first time on Interstate 287 yesterday)

He said I was in my early forties with a lot of life before me
When a moment came that stopped me on a dime,
and I spent most of the next days looking at the x-rays, talking bout the options
And talking bout sweet time
I asked him when it sank in
That this might really be the real end how's it hit you when you get that kinda news?
Man what'd you do?

And he said I went sky diving
I went Rocky Mountain climbing I went 2.7 seconds on a bull named FuManchu
And I loved deeper and I spoke sweeter
And I gave forgiveness I'd been denying
And I watched an eagle as it was flying
And he said someday I hope you get the chance
To live like you were dying.

He said I was finally the husband
That most the time I wasn't
And I became a friend a friend would like to have
And all the sudden going fishing
Wasn't such an imposition
And I went three times that year I lost my dad
Well I finally read the good book
And I took a good long hard look
At what I'd do if I could do it all again
Like tomorrow was a gift and you got eternity to think about
What'd you do with it what did you do with it
What did I do with it
What would I do with it'
To live like you were dying

Cornerstone #2 - God's Special Revelation: The Bible

Let me start this by making a bold assertion:

The Christian faith cannot be properly grounded without a belief that the Bible contains fundamental truths as revealed by God himself.

My personal belief goes further still:

The Bible is the ultimate and final authority for an understanding of God's will, his purpose and his character. The Bible is entirely sufficient for this purpose; no other written text is needed.

Further ...

There is an element of faith in the basic assertion that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is correct and true, and that its present format is what God intended it to be. Though there is ample evidence to suggest that the Bible is archeologically accurate and that the manuscript copies have been remarkably preserved, none of that serves as proof that the Bible is "the true Word of God." One must ultimately believe it to be the case.

I fully expect these assertions to be met with some consternation. The objections regarding the Bible usually fall into four areas:

• Objections to the structure of the canon
• Objections to the idea of divine inspiration
  
• Objections about the veracity of the original translations
• Objections about what things are literal and what things are merely allegorical
  

What I won't do in this posting is lay out a defense of the Bible along those four areas. I'm not an expert in those things, and I suspect I'd make a hash of it. Instead, I'll refer back to something you had in your last post. You finished that post with:

Everything appears to have the potential to be relative, including my last comment. Relative "to what" is the interesting question.

How very true, good friend. Some time ago, in some distant post, I argued that ultimately there must be an ultimate capital-T Truth somewhere; a final authority to which things are ultimately fixed or rooted. This goes to your "Relative 'to what' is the interesting question" comment. I think you and I are in agreement that ultimately that Truth is God himself.

I asked a question in an earlier post:

If God himself is Absolute Truth, is what God says also Absolutely Truth?

If the answer to that is "yes," then with regard to the Bible we now have two basic questions:

1. Did God choose to reveal Himself in the form of the written Word?
2. If so, does God have the power to create and preserve a written revelation from Him?
   

The first question is critically fundamental. If one's answer to this is "no," then any further discussion regarding the veracity of the Bible itself is pointless. If God did not choose to reveal Himself in the written Word, then by definition the Bible is not from Him. We may then launch into a discussion of the value of the Bible absent any intrinsically divine qualities. The Bible then becomes just another book, perhaps worthy of discussion and analysis, but on no higher level than any other highly regarded book from the pen of man.

But if the answer to the first question is "yes," that God did choose to reveal Himself in the form of the written Word, then we have to presume that what God chose to do, God achieved initially.

Note: I offer that last italicized "initially" to hold off dismissal of that statement based on the objection of corruption of text over time. The fundamental point here is that there would be terrific theological consequences if we were to say that God could not accomplish something he set out to do. "Hmmm ... I think I'll create a written revelation today. Darn, something's blocking me. Oh well, I guess I can't do that." :-)

If we establish that He accomplished initially what He set out to do, then the question becomes what I stated before:

If God desired that His written revelation be preserved over time, does He have the power to insure that He accomplish that desire?

Here again, the answer to that must be a "yes," otherwise we're in a quandry: God has the sovereign power to create but not to preserve? So the question really boils down to this:

Did God desire to preserve his initial written revelation?

We can only surmise the answer to that question, and hence that's where the element of faith comes into the picture. It cannot be proven that He did desire to preserve; it cannot be proven that He did not. Clearly there is ample reason to believe mankind has within his fallen nature the ability and perhaps desire to corrupt what God has created. Theologically, that corruption occurs because God permits it, not because God can't do anything about it. But there is ample reason to believe God did desire to preserve His written revelation; Jesus himself made reference to Scripture as Truth. If Jesus was God (which I believe is the case), then why would God point to Scripture as Truth when it was in fact corrupt, something He would certainly know was the case?

Therefore, I choose to believe that God desired to preserve His written revelation, and that He accomplished that desire. It is an element to faith, I freely admit.

Now, why do I feel it is a fundamental cornerstone? Because without this written revelation we have nothing on which to base a belief structure and faith in Jesus Christ. Christ's death on the cross was an atoning sacrifice for all mankind's sins? Says who? Let's say you believe that and I don't ... what's to arbitrate the difference? Or let's say Bill believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday and said "X." John also believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday, but Jesus said "Y," and "X" and "Y" are mutually exclusive. Is one right, one wrong? Or are both right? Or perhaps both wrong?

Any belief structure must have a stake in the ground somewhere. The entire Christian faith is based upon what's written in the Bible. Without that as a cornerstone, the whole thing crumbles.

So I cycle back to my original assertion: "The Christian faith cannot be properly grounded without a belief that the Bible contains fundamental truths as revealed by God himself."

Note: Now notice that I'm not saying that, for instance, you must believe that Jonah really spent three days in the belly of a fish; or that the Genesis account of creation was a literal 7-solar-day event. I'm saying that one must have a foundational faith that the Bible carries God's Truth. To believe that the Bible is not a carrier of God's Truth means one's Christian faith is simply untethered.

Belief and Faith

I had crafted a luminous append but had a failure during the posting of it! As a precuation I will copy & paste future texts to ensure that such a thing does not occur again. Highly annoying.

My Star Trek stuff about “worshipping the Son”, witty erudite bohemian intuitive insightful quips -- all gone! Ah well, such is the nature of our world :-)

But, as John Lennon said, "there is no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be".

You said:

Belief in almost all things is a sliding scale of certainty/uncertainty,
wouldn't you say?

Yes I would agree. I was trying to put a number on the slippery vernier scale and have yet to come up with better than >50% = belief and < 50% = disbeliefs. What happens at exactly 50% I do not know, but as the Uncertainty Principle excludes such exactness from the physical world (the Euclidean "point" does not exist in the physical world) I'm not worried. Your intuitive non-mathematical treatise of it reminds me of the old Chinese proverb:

Tell me, I forget
Show me, I remember
Involve me, I understand

You said:

... is belief in God the same as faith in God?

If I rephrase to:

... is belief in X the same as faith in X?

Are the two questions the same? If so then consider the example of X being “the sexual fidelity of our wives” (ok ok, theoretical for me as I’m not married):

1. We might believe that she has always been faithful to us

2. We might have faith that she is and will always be faithful to us

3. We might believe that she is having an affair

4. We would not have faith that she is having an affair

We only have faith in things that we want to be absolutely true. And shame on your philosopher, were he worth his salt he would have advised his student to take his advice with a pinch of it. Everything appears to have the potential to be relative, including my last comment. Relative "to what" is the interesting question.

Current Song: "Scoff" -- Nirvana

Different Types of "Belief"

You wrote:

Or is belief a binary thing, you either 100% believe in something or 0% (don't believe in it)?

I would think there are few things we as humans are 100% certain of. I'm reminded of a Star Trek episode titled, "Specter of the Gun." The episode was set in the "wild west" of the United States at the time of the famed "Gunfight at the OK Corral." (Which took place, incidentally, at a place not far from where I now live.) The crew of the Enterprise must face Wyatt Earp and his henchman in a gunfight. But everything is an illusion, yet so real the humans can't quite believe that it's all fake. Only Spock, mastering his human half, can convince himself it's all an illusion. A 1% doubt makes the bullet real, which will result in injury and death.

Conclusion? All things in life have been represented in a Star Trek episode. :-)

Belief in almost all things is a sliding scale of certainty/uncertainty, wouldn't you say? Belief in some things, such as the continued rotation of the earth and the rising of the sun tomorrow enjoy a near complete certainty. Belief in other things, such as the certainty of your favorite football team winning the match, are less.

So it goes with the Christian faith as well. I have heard too many well-respected pastors and ministers preach on the subject of doubts and fears, and place themselves in the middle of it by confessing their own plague of doubts at time. Doubts are, I suspect, a quite natural aspect of the Christian faith, which is why the Bible urges us to soldier on ... exercising the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fellowship despite doubts.

Note: our Star Trek crew got out of the jam by having Spock do his "Vulcan Mind Meld" on them, convincing them beyond doubt that all at the gunfight was an illusion.

* * *
You wrote:

There I go again, thinking that I live in a Universe that has an omnipotent creator always leads me back to the logical conclusion that there really is only one Absolute Truth: that omnipotent creator Himself.

I'll second that assertion, but I'll ask a follow-up question: if God himself is Absolute Truth, is what God says also Absolutely Truth?

Note: what I reject categorically is the assertion that there is no absolute truth. For one, that denies God his rightful role as sovereign. But also, it doesn't make any sense. "There is no absolutes!" Says a philosopher. "Are you sure?" Asks a student. "Absolutely!" Bellows the philosopher. :-)

* * *
This topic also brings to mind someting else. The thoughts aren't solidified in my head, so rather than make an assertion, I'll pose it as a question.

Is there a range or scale used by humans when learning about and coming to believe something? Is it strictly numerical, or is there a difference in the manner of belief?

What I have in mind is a scale that looks something like this:

• Ignorance -- complete lack of knowledge, or a willful maintenance of non-knowledge (me and all topics relating to security or performance)
  
• Unknowing Acceptance -- an acceptance of an assertion based on the authority of the person making the assertion, but little more (me and quantum physics)
  
• Understanding -- knowledge of that which comprises an assertion and an acknowledgement of the good possibility of it being true (me and the idea that there's another in this world who looks just like me)
  
• Intellectual Assent -- beyond understanding, this is willing the mind to accept as true the assertion (me and the reality of your daughter, me having never met her, but me granting intellectual assent based on your authority and other evidence)
  
• Trust -- beyond mere assent, this is the wagering of that which is valuable to us on the proposition that it is in fact true.

This will ultimately tie into one of the cornerstones on Christ and the issue of faith. From what I can gather -- from all the sermons I've heard preached on the subject -- there is a good many people who believe Jesus existed and even believe he was who he said he was. But that belief is really intellectual assent and not a "trusting faith." Perhaps I fall into this camp, though I pray I do not.

So I'm wondering ... is belief in God the same as faith in God?

A belief versus a fact

Thanks for expounding on your cornerstone 1, where you said:

It can't be "proven" in the normal sense of the word. Rather, we as humans come to a point where we must choose to believe this.

I have to agree with you. But first can we agree on what "belief" means?

I'll have a stab at it:

If you understand that a phenomenon has a 50% chance or more of being a fact then you can be said to believe in that phenomemon.

Any good?

For instance, we cannot prove that God exists 100% for sure, but we have a greater than 50% understanding that He does exist, so we are said to believe in Him. If we only believed 20% then that would leave us with an 80% disbelief so on balance we would be unbelievers. Or is belief a binary thing, you either 100% believe in something or 0% (don't believe in it)?

Facts, like 1 + 1 = 2 (relative to the axioms of mathematics ) are 100% for sure. In saying that I have of course assumed God doesn't change the "fact" that 1+1=2 relative to the axioms of mathematics!

There I go again, thinking that I live in a Universe that has an omnipotent creator always leads me back to the logical conclusion that there really is only one Absolute Truth: that omnipotent creator Himself. But then again He could change logic, and thus my conclusion. My brain hurts.

Current song: "Numbers" -- Kraftwerk

Harry Potter

I've never understood the mortification some have over the "Harry Potter" books. Sure, there's the notion of witchcraft and sorcery. But as you point out, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy has that as well. Perhaps the fear is that in "Harry Potter," the sorcery aspect is played up as a tool of good when in the right hands (the three main kids). It would seem better to watch the movies with the kids and then talk to them about how the Bible warns against sorcery. But then again, I'm not a parent. :-)

But ... I'm not really sure ... I watched the first Harry Potter movie and thought it rather boring. But then again, I found the three "Lord of the Rings" movies just as boring. I'm not a fan of those kinds of movies. No particular philosophical argument, I just don't care for them.

Cornerstone # 1 - God's Revelation

This first cornerstone seems somewhat mundane. It's a simple question, really, but our view of its answer is fundamentally important to the Christian faith. The question is:

Has God revealed himself to us, or is he unknowable?

If God has decided to shroud himself from us, then any discussion about God, his nature and attributes, belief, faith and heaven are then just pure speculation. I doubt many people hold to a view of God being completely unrevealed. Atheists hold that God doesn't exist, so the question of revelation is moot. Theists may not be clear on the nature of revelation, but I suspect they hold that some degree of revelation has occurred.

The Bible tells us that God has revealed himself in four ways:

1. Through creation
2. In our hearts and on our consciences
3. In the written word: Scripture
   
4. In the person of Jesus Christ
   

Note: and of course the Bible has references to other less common forms of revelation, for example Moses and the burning bush; Paul and the road to Damascus.

Paul used the first two as the basis of an argument that all men stand convicted before God because through the revelation made evident in creation and their consciences, they can not claim ignorance of what God demands of them.

Note: That's an argument that won't win many converts down at the pub, I suspect. :-)

Still, it is interesting that almost all people experience on occasion some form of awe when gazing upon the vastness or grandeur of creation. Similarly, there are things universally accepted as "right" and "wrong" (though the idea is being eroded by post-modernist notions of relativism, and individuals may choose to ignore or violate them). These are the things written on our consciences.

Note: I found the book, "The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man" by J. Budziszewski a fascinating study in what happens when we try to replace God's law written on our hearts with our own. Budziszewsky (pronounced Bud-a-shev-ski) argues that our God-programmed concsciences will not be, over time, denied. When supressed for too long will exact its revenge in other ways. I couldn't follow all the philosophy, but I found the book interesting.

We could go round-and-round on the validity and nature of the first two revelations, but I'm not sure it's really the main thrust of this. In my mind those two go to the question of God's basic existence and a very, very basic guidance of how we live. But the Christian faith is not built directly on those two, but rather the third form of revelation (Scripture) and the fourth (Jesus Christ).

As I sit back and ponder this, one question keeps coming up in my mind: Why? Why has God chosen to reveal himself to us? The answer to this, I feel, is tied up in why God chose to create us in the first place: so that we may experience the blessing of seeking him, drawing close to him, and sharing his perfect love with us.

So we start these six cornerstones with a very basic assertion: God exists, he created us, and he has chosen to reveal himself to us. Take away any of those three things and the Christian faith falls apart:

• If God doesn't exist, then clearly the Christian faith is a fabrication
• If God didn't create us, then it the Christian story of reconciliation to our creator God through the sacrifice of his Son seems odd. (I'll admit this argument is not as strong as the first)
• If God has not revealed himself to us, then even if he does exist, and even if he did create us, we could not know anything about him and any religious construction would be, as I said earlier, complete speculation.

As there will be in all six of my cornerstones, there is an element of faith -- or trust -- that this is true. It can't be "proven" in the normal sense of the word. Rather, we as humans come to a point where we must choose to believe this.

My point in this post is simply this: the journey towards Christian faith relies upon this first cornerstone. The Christian faith cannot be supported if this first assertion -- that God exists, he created us, and has chosen to reveal himself to us -- is not true.

Next: a closer look at God's written revelation through Scripture.

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

Spot the Shakespearean reference?

I have to pick up on a point you made about living forever, I know you meant "living on the Earth" but I've heard it used a few times by people as a reason against being a Christian, they also say:

"Personally, I find the notion of living forever quite dismal. "

Now couple yours and their statement to what we find in the Gospel of St. John and you'll see where they are coming from:

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We've discussed what we would be doing in Heaven in earlier posts, I think we agreed upon "a lot of worshipping", and then I went into "we're not natural worshippers" etc, I don't think we ever came to a crisp agreement on the nature of Heaven. Hey I've just had a thought, maybe that passage from John means .. "Whosoever believes in the scientist will get the benefits of the technology that allows one to live forever, and thus have eternal life?" :-)

Coincidentally (?) one day after the Revelation of deep.thought the Sunday Times have today published this article (dated March 13th):

"I'm going to live forever

Some scientists predict that today's children will be able to live for more than 1,000 years. Is immortality just around the corner? Bryan Appleyard peers into a hair-raising future without death". Read the full text at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1522606,00.html

But in case you don't have time to read it, I have pulled this passage from it:

"Death has always defined us. The first creatures to laugh, said Vladimir Nabokov, were also the first creatures that knew they were to die. Self-awareness means, above all, awareness of one’s own ultimate extinction. But, as La Rochefoucauld pointed out in the 17th century, looking directly at death is like staring at the sun. It cannot be done"

Yes, the emotional changes brought on by living forever will cause an immense paradigm shift of our collective psyche I believe.

"Wormwood" occurs nine times in eight passages of The Bible, it's a herb, more commonly known as absinthe? (sp). I think it was used in potions. Even Professor Snape mentions it in Harry Potter #1.

Sidebar: I've often wondered why that book/film is called different things in the US and UK. "Harry Potter and The Sorceror's Stone" in the US, and "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in the UK. The correct and historical object is "The Philosopher's Stone". Don't you have Philosophers in the US?

Sidebar#2: I know two Christians who refuse to let their children watch Harry Potter because of the dark magic and he who must not be named. Funnily these are the same Christians who are totally in favour of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, they love Lewis and his buddy Tolkien. In fact, the mother went to a fancy dress party recently dressed as "Arwen" the elf played by Liv Tyler. Don't tell her about Sauron. This makes me smile :-)

Sidebar#3: According to the Times Rich List, Joanna Rowling is the richest woman in Britain at some £435M (GBP), Madonna (and Guy Ritchie) second at £215M.

Yes I know of Rod Serling, we were broadcast re-runs of the Twilight Zone here, didn't he have some connection to "The Planet of the Apes" also?

Bring on your cornerstones!

Current song: "Not Fade Away" -- The Rolling Stones

Living Forever and Wormwood

Oh, the thoughts are just swirling through my head! First, a tip of my hat to you and the reference to "wormwood" in Revelation. I had always thought that the character of "Wormwood" in C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" was a fabrication of his imagination. It may have been. But I suspect he read that in Revelation, thought it a brilliant name, and used it.

Living Forever

I recall a television show from the my youth called "The Twilight Zone." Do you know of that show? It was hosted by Rod Serling, and it had 1/2 hour vignettes that centered on tales of mystery and the semi-supernatural. It was definitely not occult, but rather it explored the edges of our reality.

One episode's theme had to do with a man who wished (or perhaps prayed) for immortality. As the show opened the man was sick in the hospital, then upon receiving this "gift" of immortality he sets out to live life without concern or regard for death. The details of the show fade from my memory at this point, but I do recall that eventually the man grew tired of experimenting with things that would otherwise kill him, and drifted into a kind of near-insanity at the realization that he was truly immortal.

Other shows and movies have played on a similar theme. I'll admit that many explored the notion of a singular immortality in a population of mortals; that is, what it would be like to live forever when friends and family die off over time. (This is the theme of the "Highlander" movie. I find this notion of living through endless cycles of relationships quite sad and lonely. )

I'm a bit more skeptical than are you on the topic of science unraveling the mystery of aging and being able to stop or reverse its process. But we'll see. Or, I should say, let's hope we don't see, but if we do, then let us ponder the consequences.

Do you feel that science will also provide a solution to the emotional side of this? Assume that we are able to live to 120, 200, or beyond. Aside from the societal consequences of this -- which would be dramatic -- is there a point in time where one might simply grow weary of the existence? Particularly if that existence is not the stuff of Hollywood movies, where life's every wish and whim was just a finger-snap away? I think there is ... I think that our human emotional capacity to exist, year after year, decade after decade, has a limit. I could be wrong. But that's what I think.

To your question about how such a development might affect our thoughts of heaven and hell, of God and the devil ... I think it would most certainly further erode what little regard we pay it now. But here's the essential question: does our attendance to consideration of God change the reality of God? An atheist would say, I suppose, that it would simply confirm that God never existed in the first place. And we're back to the fundamental issue of "proving" (or disproving) the existence of God, which is impossible.

Let's turn the question over and ask it a different way -- assume that we humans never developed an awareness of our mortality. We live with no understanding or expectation of death, and then die. We see others die, but make no connection in our minds whatever. Were that the case, would we humans have developed religion? In other words, is a necessarily precursor to religious belief an understanding of the inevitability of death?

Then, consider this: might our awareness of our own mortality be one element of God's revelation to Himself to us? This is a thread I might pick up when I start expanding on my "Cornerstones" of faith and belief.

* * *

Personally, I find the notion of living forever quite dismal. A more powerful emotion is the fear of the actual process of dying, which is why were I to face the choice at this age of choosing death or choosing life I would opt for the latter. But at the ripe old age of 45 I can start to see some of what I believe people of advanced age feel.

Note: to that one might logical reply, "Ah, but those of advanced age who grow weary of life do so because of physical imfirmities. Were they healthy and vigorous, they would not look upon life in the same way." Perhaps. But I'm not so sure. The key here is that life absent disease does not necessarily imply life without unhappiness. And unhappiness can hang heavy on a man's soul, eventually taking all desire for life with it.

A thought just crossed my mind. God gave us intelligence and an inquisitive nature. It serves us well in many areas (food production, health care) and is our plague in others (nuclear weapons, bio-terrorism). Science might very well provide an answer to aging. Might it be yet another exercise in Free Will, one not desired by God but permitted nevertheless?

Wormwood and the End of Our Planet

Underlying your discussion of asteroids and the eventual nova of our sun is the assumption that God won't first bring about the destruction of all this in the Second Coming of our Lord. I suppose it's possible that God might use those natural mechanisms to actually bring about the destruction of all this.

To be honest, I have trouble looking out 600 years -- a mere trifle in time -- and find it entirely impossible to consider existence millions or billions of years from now. Perhaps its just fatalism. Or perhaps it's wishful thinking -- the thought of the destruction of the earth by an asteroid removes all the choices and uncertainties about life, living and death from our shoulders, doesn't it? There is some comfort in the inevitable.

My thinking on all this is starting to jump the rails of rational thought and settle more on thoughts of God's control of all things. I can't prove anything, and I can't really defend my conclusions. But they are what they are.

I have lived 45 years on this planet ... some of those in complete denial of such things, some of those in complete dread, and now there is dawning in my mind and heart an awareness of God's Glory extending over it all. I have a sense of the numinous, and from that I do not wish to turn.

Grace and peace, brother.

Wormwood

Not a seventh stone, not a cornerstone, but one very large rock as big as the USA with Earth's name on it is out there somewhere, The Bible may even be referring to it in Revelation:

Rev 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

Maybe it was an asteroid similar to Wormwood that wiped out the dinosaurs, maybe it was something else, we may never know, but we can know that there is a very high probability of one hitting our Earth. The very fact that you and I witnessed the many parts of Shoemaker-Levy slam into Jupiter in our lifetime statistically bears this out incredibly well.

The hunt for Wormwood is on. Ok, there are those who look for Wormwood in Bible codes (eg. http://exodus2006.com/Warning.htm) and may get a date of 2011. There are more scientific approaches of mapping out the orbits of many of these stones as we can see. I read that there is a very promising candidate in the asteroid belt that will get real close to the Earth in about six hundred years.

My point of this post is that unless we find another form of energy (dark energy? spacetime warp energy?) the only way that we are going to stop Wormwood is with nuclear power. This is why I am not in favour of the anti-nuclear conservationist lobby. To anti-nuclear protesters I say think on, Wormwood may kill all of the whales, all of humanity, every last virus. The biggest anti-conservationist (much worse than George W.) in one extinction level event.

There are a couple of reasons that we need to develop and harness the power of the atomic nucleus .. one is to defeat Wormwood and the other is to escape the "gravity well" of the sun.

The Earth is approximately 4.5 US billion years old. It's about 50% of the way through it's life (barring accidents, or acts of God). At the end of it's life it will be engulfed by the perimeter of the sun as Sol expands and "goes nova" (it is not massive enough to supernova). If "humanity" (or whatever we become) is going to survive we need to get away from this Sun and go and live somewhere else, or take the Earth somewhere else. Or fix the Sun going nova. We could pray to God for these things but my guess is that we are going to need a technological solution.

Maybe my post is in the anti political correctness vein, again. Maybe I'm just sharing my long term perspectives with you?

Current song: "Fools Gold" -- The Stone Roses

Live Forever

The Revelation of deep.thought:

In the future I saw many things, such as people living "forever". Humanity has defeated the ageing process. Accidents still kill bodies but the implant recording every moment of the experience of their lives could be recovered and placed into a new body -- the host living on from the moment of "death". The implant could not be destroyed as it lived in another dimension connected to the host in this one through a quantum wormhole. Anyone who ever died will be mourned -- all of us who had to die throughout history are mourned as "those who could not be saved -- due to lack of technological progress".

Now, if my vision should ever come to pass (and make believe that it will for a moment please!) -- what does this mean for Heaven and Hell? And for the soul. (There is no physical evidence for a soul but that does not mean it does exist).

If we lived a really long time, much longer than Adam, Noah or Lazurus ... how would we feel about the comment in your last post? ..

"That said, reconciling a belief in a perfect and Holy God with what we see around us is perhaps the most difficult theological issue we face. I entertain no notion of my understanding it. Rather, I cling tightly to my #3 because the alternatives as seen in my mind are so awful."

With an eternity to view the question of a creator and with no fear of Heaven or Hell -- how would we decide to live? The alternative of not finding the "Absolute Truth", of having faith just for faith's sake seems untenable to me in this situation.

Note: defeating the ageing process is closer than we think, scientists think they will have some method of treating the disease of ageing by the 2020's. It's all linked to finding out how the human genome works. I don't think The Bible refers to this, I may be wrong. I recall somewhere a warning in scripture, something like, "do not try to work out how God's creation is put together" .. I can't find it though, maybe your eidecism (a good word that you won't find in dictionary.com :-) can recall it? (I may be imagining things of course).

Current Song: "Live Forever" - Oasis

Maybe I don’t really want to know how your garden grows
I just want to fly
Lately did you ever feel the pain in the morning rain as it soaks you to the bone?

Maybe I just want to fly, I want to live, don’t want to die
Maybe I just want to breath, maybe I just don’t believe

Maybe you’re the same as me, we see things they’ll never see
You and I are gonna live forever

Maybe I will never be all the things I want to be
But now is not the time to cry, now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me, we see things they’ll never see

You and I are gonna live forever

A Multitude of Stones

I see the point you're making about the "apparent irrationality" of God. There's no clean lines of separation between these "cornerstones," as you pointed out when you wrote that to your eye my #2 is a subset of my #1. In the same manner, I see your "7th stone" as a subset of my #3 -- the things we can't understand must be held within the context of a belief, a faith, that God is indeed Holy, as revealed to us in Scripture. If God were arbitrary and capricious -- that is, possessing characteristics more like us than different from us -- or truly "irrational" then the nature of our response would dramatically change. Rather than a grateful surrender, as I allude to in my 6th cornerstone, we would assume a posture of fearful appeasement. In that sense God would become less a trancendent and perfect Spirit and more like the gods of ancient Greece or Rome.

That said, reconciling a belief in a perfect and Holy God with what we see around us is perhaps the most difficult theological issue we face. I entertain no notion of my understanding it. Rather, I cling tightly to my #3 because the alternatives as seen in my mind are so awful.

I separated #2 from #1 simply because I think the divine nature of God's revelation through Scripture is of paramount importance. Truth is, as you say, it could have been included under #1. And perhaps after I expand on this a bit, I'll see the value in doing so.

* * *
I hope you have a wonderful time playing hooky with your daughter!

* * *
Thank you for your prayers for Eric and Joyce.

* * *
I look forward to your posts. There's no such thing as an "inconsequential" post.

A seventh stone?

I like your cornerstones of belief and am interested in how you expound upon them, for instance to my unitiated mind, #2 seems to be included in #1.

My personal cornerstones of belief would not be not be complete without a reason for God's apparent irrationality:

7. I must remember that God appears irrational because I do not have all of the necessary information as to why God does and allows what He does. So He can command whole villages to be slaughtered, He can strike down Uzzah in a trice and stay his hand against Ian Huntley as he slaughters two innocent school girls.

I can't concentrate on all the good things about God without considering "the bad things" -- if, even with the bad things I can still believe in Him, then I have a chance. If I ignore the bad things, gloss over them, then am I really taking my belief in Him to my core?

***

I am indeed praying for Eric and Joyce my brother. God already knows what will happen to them, we must pray that the knowledge and peace they desire reaches them. Would they go to Church together and ask God (not a human preacher) for help?

***

I have a lucky result today as I'm taking my daughter to the movies, I'm playing hooky with her from work -- plus it's not even my weekend!!

***

I have two (pretty inconsequential) posts brewing regarding a dream I had of the far flung future, this evening I will post hopefully!

Peace and Grace be with you.

Current song: "Think for a minute" -- Housemartins

Something’s going on, changes is taking place
Children smiling in the street have gone without a trace
This street used to be full, it used to make me smile
And now it seems that everyone is walking single file

And men who bow their heads in shame
That used to hold them high
And those that used to say hello simply pass you by

I always said it could, they never though it would
The people look so pitiful, I’m thinking that it should
And now it’s almost here, now it’s on it’s way
I can’t help saying told you so and have a nice final day

'Cause nothing I could say
Could ever make them see the light
Now apathy is happy that it won without a fight

Think for a minute, stop for a minute

My Six Cornerstones of Belief

I have been pondering something for a long time. We've touched upon this before. It has to do with those things we feel are the very core -- the fundamental cornerstones -- of the Christian faith. I refer to these as the "3 x 5 Card Principles," meaning that if forced by economy to jot it down on a 3x5 card, these would be those things that made the 3x5 card.

These are the things I cling to, for were these to fall, the rest of the structure falls as well.

Why these things keep circling around in my mind, I can't say. But it's been forming for several years now, and new things come in and add to the detail behind the list. But the list itself has changed little over the past few years. Summarized, my six cornerstones are:

• God's Revelation: Three Methods - Nature, Conscience, Written Word
• The Bible: God's Divine Written Revelation
• The Nature of God: Set Apart, or "Holy"
• The Nature of Man: Sinful Beyond Our Ability to Mend
• God's Solution: Grace Through Jesus Christ
• Our Response: Grateful Surrender

What I wish to do in subsequent posts is to go into some of the details of thought that exist behind each of these. Recently the topic of God's "Holiness" has been boiling in my mind. I never before realized how truly critical an understanding of God's Holy nature is to the remainder of the faith. These things stir in my mind; I seek expression.

* * *

Please pray for Eric and Joyce. Pray for their marriage; pray for each of them. Pray that whatever haunts Joyce's memories be overcome by the healing strength of the Holy Spirit. Pray that through this experience the two of them come closer to Christ, our Lord and our Savior.

Pray also that I might be a vessel of God's Holy workings; that I might cast off my foolish pride and simply be His to guide and direct in the aid and service of Eric and Joyce.

May all the Glory be His, now and ever after.

In Christ's Glorious and Holy Name.

Calm Mornings Dawn After Stormy Nights

I'm sorry to hear about your little girl's troubles this evening. I offered a prayer of healing for her. I'm sure it's a comfort for her to know that her daddy is near.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with Pastor Phil's analysis that divorce can be justified when the two partners find themselves unequally yoked. Having one-half a marriage a committed Christian and the other half not is a very, very difficult thing to maintain. I think that's why the Bible is so strong in its directive that Christians not marry non-Christians. However, in the case of a couple who are not Christians at the time of marriage, but one then becomes a Christian ... well, then there's a particular burden on the Christian to do one's best to maintain the marriage; to provide a Christian witness within the marriage; to pray for the unbelieving partner. This is the story of Lee Stroebel, the author of the "Case For..." series of books (Case for Christ, Case for Faith, Case for a Creator). During his marriage his wife became a Christian; he remained a fairly strong atheist. But over time the clear change in his wife's life began to have an effect on him. He started to open his eyes to the transformative effect of Christ, and that allowed him to consider the "case for" Christ and faith. Stroebel's wife had the right perspective, I think -- finding herself unequally yoked, she persisted within the marriage and the result was a marriage of two committed Christians.

So the notion of planning for a divorce based on a justification of unequal yoking seems to me a perverse twisting of the Biblical teaching. The point I was making was more the divorce-in-the-past scenario, and whether a remarriage is a continued state of adultery because of it. In my mind, that comes down to the fundamental question of whether God can forgive past sins ... and the answer to that is a clear yes.

* * *
Is God completely unbounded? Only by himself. By that I mean that because of God's perfect nature, God can not be or do somethat that is contrary to himself. God can't sin -- not because he doesn't have the power, but because for God to sin would be a fundamental contradiction of God himself. Were God to sin, he would no longer be God.

* * *
I think it perfectly understandable that for a couple to have "another" in their marriage -- Christ -- and have Christ be the primary focus of each person's love is very justifiable ... both Biblically and sensibly. So it goes with life in general. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and we believe that Christ truly loves us and wants the best for us, how possibly could loving God above all else be bad for us?

Note: now, it is true that some people misunderstand this and "love God" to the exclusion of their wives or husbands. That's a shame.

* * *
As to your questions about Uzzah ... I can only surmise. But there's a sense within me that even though God knew Uzzah would do what he did, knowing in advance still does not alleviate the offense of God's Holiness being defiled by the sinful touch of man. I think in one way we're back to the notion of God's inability to do something that contradicts himself. We get into some lofty metaphysical questions that I won't pretend to know the answers to: "Does the presence of sin near God diminish God's Holiness?" "Is God truly unable to be in the presence of sin, or is that a sovereign choice on his part?" But the bottom line is, I think, that God's Holy nature is a cornerstone of who God is. Take that away and much of the Bible doesn't really make much sense (at least in my addled mind).

The passage on Uzzah I cited is clearly a tough one to swallow. As are the passages where God orders the Israelites to go into a town and wipe out every living thing there -- men, women, children and beasts. Fundamental to the understanding of that is, I think (but not think very clearly, I might add), the critical concept of God's unchanging, unapproachable, glorious Holiness. We as fallen humans can't grasp this, and Paul in Romans (I think) speaks of this when he writes that we see things "only dimly, as if through a dark glass." One of the promises of heaven is that there we will see God's full Glory. And that will be like nothing we can imagine.

Did Uzzah go to heaven? I don't know. Could God grant forgiveness to Uzzah? Yes. From what I understand, Christ's sacrifice on the cross providing the atonement forward and backward in time. How the exact mechanics of that work out -- that is, would Uzzah be given an opportunity in some post-death but pre-heaven state to accept Christ? -- I just don't know.

* * *
Was Stewart Copeland (drummer for the Police) an American? I'm not sure. But I do recall the story that during his formative years he spent considerable time in the Arab regions. I guess he was the son of a diplomat or something. Apparently he picked up the syncopated rhythm styles from that culture. His drumming is unlike most other rock drummers. I like the music of the Police. Their first hit, "Roxanne," instantly transports me back to 1978 and memories of college.

I do agree with you that all positive advanced in music came from England. :-)

Well, is that strictly true? Isn't it the case that much of the English "R&B" movement of the 1960's was deeply influenced by American blues? Elvis' music was essentially black music tarted up with a little rockabilly. Eric Clapton openly credits American blues musicians from the early 20th century, as do, I think, the Rolling Stones. I'm not sure where blues came from -- probably African rhythms and something else.

Did you ever see the movie "School of Rock?" The movie is not that good, but there's a scene where Jack Black has this huge timeline drawn up on the blackboard, showing how one style of music influenced others. I thought that scene funny. I'd love to see an actual lineage of music development. I'm sure one exists somewhere.

Stormy night

It's 04:37 here in the UK and we're not getting much sleep as my daughter has a fever (some kind of virus) and is burning hot. I'm alternating between getting her drinks, mopping her brow and cuddling her when things get too much for her. Such are the blessings of parenthood sometimes my dear friend -- but I'd sooner she were here than not! Right now I am watching over her, occasionally she opens her heavy eyelids to check that I haven't fallen asleep and I give her a smile. Listening to her laboured, shivering breathing is like waiting for a storm to pass.

Thanks for your post on Adultery and Divorce. Indeed spookily similar to Pastor Phil's treatise on the subject I might add. He applied the concept of Grace, along with genuine repentance and a third central idea: the saving of the unsaved and the casting off of the "yoke of inequality". The idea being that if you're a Christian, or turn to Christianity during your marriage and your partner is not a Christian and does not, then you can be forgiven for leaving them -- or something along those lines. I do recall thinking at the time that this was a highly manufactured interpretation of scripture to allow some chance of repairing the honest mistake of marrying the wrong person. But as you say, God is an unbounded Grace giver - he can forgive anything.

Note: Is God completely unbounded? Could God tell "a lie" for instance? Such a question doesn't make sense to me, God could tell a lie and be inconsistent if he wanted to, but we'd never know because he could also alter reality, or our perception of it, to ensure that we never experienced the lie or inconsistency. I'm not saying that he would bother (he could do lots of things but does not), but when you get omnipotence, anything is possible.

It's encouraging for me to hear your words about Lisa and I pray that you and she have the divinely blessed union which you clearly both enjoy now, for as long as you both (and God) desire. I think about 18 months ago I had the thought that if two parties in a marriage loved a third party (an omnipotent God) more than eachother then their union was more likely to succeed, purely from a "this is how the human mind works" perspective. Right now I can't remember my full analysis of the situation, but it had something to do with trust and responsibility (the belief on the part of the couple of "our marriage is in better hands than our own so it has to succeed").

The story of Uzzah that you mention is interesting, Uzzah was killed because he broke God's law. Now the questions that spring to my mind are:

1. Why was God angry? He knew Uzzah would do that. Now we went through this debate in earlier posts and I think we agreed to disagree. I maintain that God does not get angry as he knows everything a priori. Anger is a instinctive human emotion that arises from not being in complete control of circumstances. If God chooses to experience anger then he is in control of it, and that's not real anger.

2. Did Uzzah go to Heaven?

Current song (in my head) : "Every Breath You Take" -- The Police

PS. Any pop/rock music of any note ('cept Elvis of course) came from the UK, but I believe that The Police had a US drummer? :-)

The Story of Uzzah

The other day I was listening to a tape message by R.C. Sproul on the subject of God's Holiness. Dr. Sproul made reference to this passage, from 2 Samuel 6:3-7, NIV (emphasis added):

They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums andcymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down andhe died there beside the ark of God.

Dr. Sproul started by stating the natural objection to this story -- what kind of God would kill a man for doing what came naturally; that is, wanting to keep the Ark from falling off the cart and into the mud. What could possibly be the reading we should take from this?

Dr. Sproul's topic was, recall, the Holiness of God. The Ark was the chosen instrument to represent the dwelling place of the living God. It was Holy, not to be defiled. And here's what Dr. Sproul said that just floored me (paraphrased):

"What Uzzah did was to make the arrogant presumption that the mud would defile the Ark more than his hand. But we must remember that the mud is simply dirt -- God's created dirt -- dirt that when dry is dusty and when wet is mud. In that sense dirt obeys perfectly the natural laws of God, whereas man is disobedient,and willfully so."

I am coming to a sense that my notion of God's Holy nature is woefully small. What Dr. Sproul pointed out here convicted me greatly, for I too would make the presumption that my hand is less foul than the mud. But it's not true, is it? Christ did not die on the cross to provide an atoning sacrifice for elements of God's created natural order, such as dirt. He died on the cross to provide an atoning sacrifice for mankind; or, more correctly, those who would place their trust in Christ for their salvation.

I don't pretent this to be a comfortable posting. It's quite challenging and no doubt controversial. But it is, to my eye, inescapably true -- we (mankind) are incapable of approaching God on our own merit. And when I get ahold of that Truth, then the Gospel shines like a diamond set upon black velvet.

Is Any Sin Too Small ... or Too Big?

Good thoughts, brother. If you'll permit me, I'm going to operate on what is purely my gut instinct on this, without any particular reference to Bible passages. (Though definitely operating within the broad context of the Bible, as I understand it.)

Adultery

The quote you provide from Matthew 5:28 is Jesus speaking. We have to remember the nature of the opposition he faced. The Pharisees were terrifically interested in close and precise readings of the law. They sought to invalidate Christ's teachings by seeking loopholes (for instance, when one asked Jesus what the definition of one's "neighbor" was when considering the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self. Jesus' response was the parable of the "Good Samaritan," and the message was, essentially, "Your neighbor is everyone, even people you despise. Try to find a loophole in that!" (I paraphrased, obviously.)

The same must have applied to the commandment to avoid adultery. I believe what Jesus was teaching was that God's original purpose for that commandment extended well beyond the physical act of having sexual intercourse with one not one's wife. Hence the teaching that even looking at another woman lustfully is itself a violation of the sacred and holy covenant of marriage. From my own experience I know for a fact that excessive indulgence in leering looks at other women has a negative impact of the way I view my own wife. It is clearly better that I not do it than to do it.

Am I programmed to do it? Well, I'm not so sure. Or, more precisely, I'm not so sure that if I am, that was God's original design. It might well be a manifestation of my fallen nature. Who can really say? But if we are to believe the God created man initially in his image, and that initially (pre-fall) man was without sin, then it follows that Adam before the fall did not have such an urge.

Note: Of course, that begs the question -- would he have had the urge had their been other women other than Eve. See? I'm as capable as the next chap in coming up with difficult challenges to scripture! :-)

Even within the framework of our present condition I'm not so sure I'm inescapably programmed to lust after women. Lust I do, but each time I'm fairly aware of a brief moment in time when I could forego the exercise if I chose to do so. My problem is I too often choose to go ahead and indulge, despite my knowledge of it being a conscious decision at the time. What we're talking about here is the classic, "The first look is natural; the second look is a sin." You know what I'm talking about here -- your eye is caught by an attractive women, and you turn your eyes. Then there's a temptation to look again.

Relative to Matthew 5:38, we must also remember that one of the objectives of Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" was to impress upon the listeners that what God expected was nothing short of perfection. The rebuttle is usually: "But nobody is perfect!" Precisely the point. Therefore, since nobody is perfect, everyone needs a saviour.

Note: see my next post on this ... I found the point made there particularly compelling.

An interesting twist to this concern the unmarried man. Is it a sin to lust after a woman who is unmarried when the man himself is also unmarried. Here we get into the question of what's in the man's heart. Consider two scenarios, both concerning an unmarried man who spies an attractive woman:

• In the first scenario he makes note of her attractiveness. He remembers that sexual relations outside of marriage is a violation of God's will. He asks God for help from allowing his sinful nature to get the better of him. He then strikes up a conversation with the woman and the normal (and quite natural) process of courting takes place.
• In the second scenario he makes note of her attractiveness. He then imagines what she looks like without her clothes on, and then imagines what it is like to have sex with the woman. He then allows his mind to wander to considering more and more permissive sexual acts. All the while, God is nowhere within the man's thoughts. His focus is almost entirely on gratification of the flesh.

You tell me: which of the two violates Jesus' commandment as expressed in Matthew 5:28?

Divorce

Note: I have to offer -- as a matter of full disclosure -- that I am a divorced man myself. Whether that affects my objective view of this is open to debate.

I can recall a discussion that ensued in a Bible study course I was involved with. The topic was divorce, and one of the women was very concerned. She had once before divorced and was now remarried.

The thought that entered my mind -- and remains -- is this: assume divorce is a sin ... is it a sin too big to be covered by God's Grace? The answer is, of course, no. There is no sin of man too big to be covered by God's Grace. The Bible speaks of only one unforgiveable sin -- blaspheming the Holy Spirit -- and there's tremendous debate about what that actually means. The bottom line is that God's Grace soars above all that, and the sacrificial blood of Christ is capable of covering even the most heinous of sins, which divorce is, by comparison, not.

Note: Grace is a fascinating topic. "Grace," traditionally understood, is unmerited favor, granted by God to man, completely at the will and favor of God himself. Therein lies the answer to the common challenge to the Christian faith:

Q: Is a baby born sinful?
A: Yes
Q: If a baby dies before 'knowing Christ,' are they therefore guaranteed to go to hell?
A: No, not guaranteed. God's Grace is not 'earned,' even by adults. God is perfectly free to extend his Grace to an infant who dies in inherent sinfulness.

When it comes to salvation, sin is a binary thing -- either one is perfect (without sin) or one is not perfect (has sinned, is sinning, will one day sin). That's the "good news" of the Gospel -- yes, we are not perfect. God knows that. Yet he gave his only Son so that through him we might be granted forgiveness of our sins and be credited with the full righteousness of Christ himself.

Let me hear an "Amen!" :-)

Do I believe that by divorcing my first wife I committed a sin? Yes. Do I feel that it is one that can be forgiven through Grace? Absolutely. Should I therefore think I can divorce and remarry as often as I please? Of course not, no moreso than I think I should commit any sin as often as I please. We've had this discussion before -- the problem with sin for the regenerated Christian is not that it jeopardizes his salvation. The problem is really that for the truly regenerated Christian, continued sin -- particularly willful sinning -- drives a wedge between the Christian and God, preventing the Christian from growing in his faith and manifesting the full measure of the fruits of the Spirit.

This is why I give thanks to the Lord for granting me the conviction of heart from my first marriage so that I might carry a greater reverence for the sanctity of marriage into my second. I truly believe that my marriage now is for life, and that it is not only a covenant between Lisa and me, but between the two of us and God himself.

Is divorce wrong? Yes. Should one divorce casually, without reflection and regard for the offense committed before God? Absolutely not. Can God forgive one who divorces and therefore sins? Yes. Does God favor repeated divorces? No, nor does He favor repeated stealing, idolatry, covetousness ... well, you get the picture.

How does that explanation rate relative to the one given by your pastor?

Adultery

I summarise your last post as "nothing bad can come of true Christian witness". I might add that "God moves in mysterious ways".

Moving on to another subject that I am having difficulties with currently. I'll start with (and this is all from BLB btw at http://www.blueletterbible.org

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Ok this is a commandment which seems pretty straightforward to me. If I may, I'll forego the references in the Old Testament which instructs the dealth penalty for said sin and move to the New Testament Covenant:

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is a tough one as men are gene-programmed to do such a thing, this is how the race is propagated. I doubt that Matthew knew what a gene was. Certain "innate" behaviours are handed down on RNA chains, it's how a baby instinctively knows certain things.

And finally:

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

What does Matt 19:9 mean?

Consider:

"put away" - does this mean divorce?
"fornication" - presumably sexual relations outside of the marriage? So if a man "puts away" his wife because she has fornicated then is it ok (in Biblical Law) for him to divorce her?

and the last part, does that mean that any man who marries a woman who has been married before is committing adultery?

I know that there are many Christian works on the subject of divorce. Phil, the pastor at my local church once tried to sell a particular one (written by a friend of his) at the pulpit on a Sunday morning! I suspected that was because he himself was divorced and remarried and was desperate to confirm that that was "ok" and vindicated scripturally. I may have been wrong.

Thoughts?

Current Song: "No woman no cry" -- Bob Marley and the Wailers

Can Sincere Christian Witness Result in Bad?

The scenario you provided in your most recent post is certainly a compelling question. I think the quick answer to the question is this: Yes, most certainly, it does not necessarily follow that sincere Christian witness will always result in things we deem "good" or "desirable." If that were the case, then Christ's witness 2000 years ago would have had a dramatically different outcome.

In your last paragraph you wrote: "By living a righteous life, on the face of it, it appears that Christopher has encouraged Agnes to sin." Really? Encouraged? B might be the outcome from A, but it doesn't necessarily follow that A always results in B. People respond in all manner of ways to things -- sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad -- and often one is only tenuously connected to the other. If there's a kernel of reality behind your hypothetical, I suspect there are far, far more variables in the equation that you're aware of.

As I reflect upon the broader question of Christian witness and the results that flow from it, several thoughts come to mind:

Is the Christian witness truly correct and truly sincere?

I have little doubt that in your case it is. Truly.

However, it does not necessarily follow that all people who profess to be Christians are truly so; or, if they are, are mature enough in their faith and trust to effectively witness. I think back to shortly after I first came to trust in Christ and I truly shudder at the memory of some of the things I said to others. Thankfully I have matured somewhat since that time and I less frequently seek to "argue" the Christian faith. So in that sense it's quite possible that someone's "witness" leads to undesirable things ... but that's because the witness itself is faulty. It's quite possible to lead people into sin under the name of religion -- it happens all the time.

Note: but I do not believe that sincerely expressing the Truth of Christ in one's life leads another into sin. That would be contradictory to much of the Gospel. The recipient of the Gospel message may choose to disregard it and then go and sin, but it can't be said, I believe, that "Truth of Christ leads to sin." I honestly believe that's a logical contradiction.

Does it necessarily follow that we might then disregard our Lord's call to be a "light on the hill" and shine the Truth of his gospel in this world?

I would think not. Christ did not ask us to be witness to his Truth only when we were happy with the outcome of our efforts. On the contrary, the message of the Bible is quite the opposite: we can expect to be persecuted because of our allegiance to Christ as Lord. Disappointment in the outcome of our witness is, I suppose, a form of persecution. So it would seem to me that if our witness is true to Christ, then we must try -- hard as it often is -- to trust that Christ knows what he's doing.

Note: And of course, he does. You and I have had this conversation before ... Jesus Christ (God himself) is remarkable in ways we are only just now beginning to learn.

Does it necessarily follow that what we see as an undesirable outcome is, in the economy of God's eternal plan, truly undesirable?

I think back to when I divorced my first wife. There was no clear and compelling reason to do so, other than I had grown restless after eight years and thought that I might address the restlessness elsewhere. So I went ahead and broke my marriage vow. Though not a Christian at the time, God placed a heavy burden on my heart for having done so. Several years later I meet Lisa, and I can vividly recall approaching my second marriage with an intense sense of introspection -- I couldn't fully explain it, but I knew that marriage was more than a convenient living arrangement. I learned a valuable lesson from my divorce -- regrettable as it was -- and carried that lesson into my present marriage. In one month we celebrate 13 years. And those have not always been blissful years, but I had a powerful sense of the importance of striving to abide by the covenant I had entered into. The message here is this: God is not limited by our mistakes and errors in judgment. If we are receptive to his guidance, he can take the most broken of people and from that can spring much goodness.

For years I had heard the phrase "Jars of Clay" used in conjunction with the Bible and, even, a musical group. I never knew what it meant, or even where it came from.

Note: It comes from 2 Corinthians 4:7: "But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this allsurpassing power is from God and not from us." NIV, emphasis added.

Within the context of your hypothetical, this starts to make more sense, doesn't it? Our Christian witness does not really spring from us, but rather from the Holy Spirit who indwells us. When another sees the "light" that shines from you, it does not come from you -- it comes from God. We are but mere common vessels -- simple, unadorned "jars of clay" -- in which God has placed something remarkably wonderful: himself. As Christians we get ourselves into trouble when we try to improve upon God by our actions, separate from his guiding Spirit.

Witness on, brother. Do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Do so with humble acknowledgement of the source of all things good that come from you. Be a "light on the hill."

In Christ's Holy Name ...

Christopher and Agnes

Thank you thank you so much for the expert technical assistance that you gave me today my brother.

I believe in an earlier post you mentioned that one of the best things you or I can do is to live our lives as righteous Christians -- and this will hopefully influence people in some kind of positive fashion.

But will such an influence always work out "positive"? Let's take this hypothetical example: Agnes (the agnostic) meets Christopher (the Christian). Agnes is, for the sake of argument, married. Now Agnes feels that she made a mistake in getting married but that was a long time ago, now Agnes and her husband have children and the family is smoothly functional, but Agnes feels that she is "living a lie".

Agnes meets and talks to Christopher, Agnes is impressed with the teachings of honesty that Christopher expounds as fundamental to the Christian doctrine. She now feels an "urge" to be honest with herself and everyone else. So impressed and so distressed is she at living a lie, Agnes leaves her husband -- now she lives alone, with all the complications of two parents living apart that one would expect.

What has the Christian accomplished in this? By living a righteous life, on the face of it, it appears that Christopher has encouraged Agnes to sin.

Current song: "Love And Regret" -- Deacon Blue